tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post4732584158522267840..comments2024-03-29T12:32:55.404+05:00Comments on THESE VIOLENT DELIGHTS: Loving not wisely but too wellTom Shonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-91311315506528304862012-09-05T04:34:21.125+05:002012-09-05T04:34:21.125+05:00Carry on, gentlemen. I won't venture to add an...Carry on, gentlemen. I won't venture to add an opinion, but simply say you have all given me a lot to think about.Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02024818194249595884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-53236067169685816622012-06-18T19:03:29.238+05:002012-06-18T19:03:29.238+05:00Boy, do I love this.
And for all of Brody's ...Boy, do I love this. <br /><br />And for all of Brody's talk of auterurism with respect to Wes Anderson, he virtually ignores how Anderson, like the classicist he is at heart, puts such an emphasis on writing and performance. He has quite a bit in common with some of the Old Hollywood greats, in that sense, and that's part of what makes him great - though he is about as unique in his use of compositions as anyone working in films today, the real emphasis is always on the content. His films are not the hollow decorations they are so often accused of being. And that is what elevates him to the realm of greatness, in my mind. <br /><br />Film is indeed collaborative, and this director-as-author analogy is frankly destructive to the understanding of motion pictures. David Lynch, one of the most idiosyncratic of all film artists, said he views the director as a filter through which ideas pass. This is completely contradictory to this supreme being that the director is so often trivialized as being - as you point out, there are so many accidents, compromises, and happenstance during the making of a film that is reductive to look at directors this way. There is so much more to the making of a film than a director airing their dirty laundry in front of a camera.Ryan Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-73660734811073573842012-06-18T17:48:19.614+05:002012-06-18T17:48:19.614+05:00Auteurists at their most extreme remind me of the ...Auteurists at their most extreme remind me of the time I sat across from a handful of evangelicals conducting a bible study group at a coffee shop. Their leader, sincere and well-meaning yet frustrated by all the repetition and tedium, finally said, "I don't want all of us to merely parrot each other; I want us to think outside the box." Problem was, they couldn't think outside the box, because they'd brought the box with them.<br /> <br />Same thing with auteurism. For me there's nothing more boring than the accusation that you don't like a movie the "right" way. I vastly prefer Tarantino's wish (the gist being) that "a million different people come out of my movie each seeing a million slightly different versions of that same film." I keep hearing that auteurism is misunderstood, yet if so some of its most avid proponents are doing a fine job perpetuating the misunderstanding.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-23668292776598896912012-06-17T19:08:00.435+05:002012-06-17T19:08:00.435+05:00Auterism as classically defined does imply that al...Auterism as classically defined does imply that all of a filmmakers films are accorded equal status: "There are no good or bad films, just good or bad filmmakers," said Truffaut. And Brody's statement makes good on that threat. "To love Moonlight Kingdom at the expense of The Darjeeling Limited or The Life Aquatic is to love it lightly." In for a penny, in for a pound. If someone wants to define auterism as simply recognizing patterns or repetitions, then I'm an auterist, I guess, although the word I would prefer to use is simply "observant."Tom Shonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-34236387926447048232012-06-17T06:42:23.793+05:002012-06-17T06:42:23.793+05:00"You see, this is why I could never be an aut..."You see, this is why I could never be an auterist. I don't want to like all of a filmmaker's movies."<br /><br />But surely auteurism doesn't force you to <em>like</em> all of a filmmaker's movies; it merely asks you to recognize repetitions in his craft. You talk of Aronofsky's "bloodless patterns" and Polanski's "characteristic solipsism" and Spielberg learning what "Spielbergian" meant: is that not enough?Colin Lowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05486791544755794423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-23684337384120927712012-06-17T05:09:23.865+05:002012-06-17T05:09:23.865+05:00There are many things I love in Days of Heaven, bu...There are many things I love in Days of Heaven, but.... well, I won't go into it here. It's a little impolite. It's certainly at the head of the remainder of the pack.Tom Shonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938779517705582285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-59546554938101275662012-06-17T01:47:42.338+05:002012-06-17T01:47:42.338+05:00P.S. You love Days of Heaven. You know you do. You...P.S. You love Days of Heaven. You know you do. You are just refusing to admit it until the last reel.The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3081747433018117316.post-18252279782836324842012-06-17T00:01:23.357+05:002012-06-17T00:01:23.357+05:00Such a short post, and such a lot in it. I agree w...Such a short post, and such a lot in it. I agree with Richard that it is particularly distressing to encounter someone who loves a movie in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />But even more do I agree with you that it's a far worse thing to be asked, by the rock-ribbed auteurist approach, to sign on for "Man's Favorite Sport?" if you presume to adore "His Girl Friday." <br /><br />And if there are people who dig Moonrise Kingdom, and only Moonrise Kingdom, what of it? Are there no examples of someone whom Richard considers an overall mediocrity coming up with one, and only one, great movie? Wow, I don't think I could face a lot of movies if I didn't allow for the element of surprise, the idea that this one time, maybe this person got it right for a change. <br /><br />Shoot, even Andrew Sarris had a chapter for "one-offs." <br /><br />Last year I had a long email conversation with Raymond de Felitta, a friend who's a director and a screenwriter, about some of these same issues. He said bluntly that spending time in the AFI library reading screenplays had brought home to him that a good screenplay meant even an acknowledged auteur had a great deal of his work done for him already. Ray also mentioned The Last of the Mohicans (the Michael Mann, which I know you love) and how Mann acknowledged lifting the structure of the 1936 Philip Dunne screenplay because it was already so well done. Anyway, if you are interested, I <a href="http://selfstyledsiren.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html" rel="nofollow">posted most of the exchange.</a><br /><br /> One of my favorite tweets ever was this from Lou Lumenick: "Not being an auteurist means never having to say you're sorry."The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.com