Jump to content

The Cinema debate thread


Kaftan Barlast

Recommended Posts

I agree.  It is what some people call auteur filmmaking.

 

 

A very. very small group of people that would be :D

 

 

With 'Auteur' is meant a directing and writing genius who has a unique vision and the ability to make that vision come true on screen. We're talking Kurosawa, Bergman, Truffaut, Fellini and the gang here.

 

 

Calling Lucas an Auteur is like comparing the guy who did the Iron Maiden album sleeves with Picasso :-

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to fire my ususal retort when I realised every debate we have here seem to be going in circles. And the Lucas thing isnt fun enough to discuss for the trillionth time..

 

 

But I have to say that the word is usually associated with someone that has huge talant for writing and directing. I mean Ed Wood or Russ Meyer were 'auteur' if you define it like that :D

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did debate in high school if you can't tell. A HUGE part of formal debate is defining terms.

 

Given the quoted definition (from dictionary.com) Lucas is an auteur. You can certainly argue that auteur has another connotation, but it is not listed as a second definition of the word.

 

I was pursuing indie film before the guys who the cameras and equipment decided to bail. I still have some scripts and would love to get into indie film if I had the money.

 

I read alot of filmmaking. Ask Sarah. I'm a HUGE film geek.

 

I have most often seen auteur used in derogatory fashion, though there is debate over it. One might quote Peter Jackson as a recent success as an auteur director, whose singular vision kept his films consistent and seemless in their immersion into a fantasy world.

 

Others cite Lucas as a failure in auteur directing and why it is a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everyone knows that the definition of a term can be claimed to be highly individual, so by claiming that one specific defitition of a term is to be applied universally, you are in fact steering the debate into a debate around the definition of a term and away from the initial subject.

 

 

 

According to my interpretation of the original 'Auteur theory' that some films can be said to have a single author rather than being a largely collaborative effort, then I say that Lucas relies too heavily on the creative input of others to be considered 'auteur'.

 

It could also be argued that 'auteur' can only be applied to makers of serious or art cinema, and not to simple entertainment.

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sorry, I accidentally removed a post that should have been here and I am unable to retrieve it. Terribly sorry, here it is in quotes

 

 

No I said that some might call Lucas an auteur, and your argued that he wouldn't be, citing a specific connotation of a word that you now admit can be construed in different ways.

 

That is why I tried to be clear and offered a specific definition.

"Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to my interpretation of the original 'Auteur theory' that some films can be said to have a single author rather than being a largely collaborative effort, then I say that Lucas relies too heavily on the creative input of others to be considered 'auteur'.

From what I've witnessed, it takes 3 years for him to make a movie simply because he has to personally oversee EVERYTHING. That makes him an auteur. Most other filmmakers rely on second-unit directors, producers, etc. to have almost an equally large share in the film.

 

In and of itself, directing, writing and editting could make one an auteur since you control so much of the film from that angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I said that some might call Lucas an auteur, and your argued that he wouldn't be, citing a specific connotation of a word that you now admit can be construed in different ways.

 

That is why I tried to be clear and offered a specific definition.

 

 

Yes, but I was in fact applying the ancient Greek rethoric strategy of "not really paying attention to what your opponent is saying"

 

And besides, that is YOUR interpretation of what you said. I think Im entitled to form my own opinion of what you really said, deying me of the right to have an opinion is something is highly undemocratic.

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to my interpretation of the original 'Auteur theory' that some films can be said to have a single author rather than being a largely collaborative effort, then I say that Lucas relies too heavily on the creative input of others to be considered 'auteur'.

From what I've witnessed, it takes 3 years for him to make a movie simply because he has to personally oversee EVERYTHING. That makes him an auteur. Most other filmmakers rely on second-unit directors, producers, etc. to have almost an equally large share in the film.

 

In and of itself, directing, writing and editting could make one an auteur since you control so much of the film from that angle.

 

 

He certainly oversees many aspects of production but he does so much more in the manner of a producer than an actual director.

 

He also claims that the primary in his films is the visuals, yet he leaves all of the design and photography to others. He is also known for being useless at directing actors, something that is essential for one to be considered a director.

 

 

But there are ways to intepret 'Auteur' to be a person who is considered to the the author of a film in the public opinion, something that Lucas (wrongly IMO) is.

DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself.

 

Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture.

 

"I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But everyone knows that the definition of a term can be claimed to be highly individual, so by claiming that one specific defitition of a term is to be applied universally, you are in fact steering the debate into a debate around the definition of a term and away from the initial subject.

...

Now you're starting to understand how to argue! :wub:

 

 

Polite Suggestion: Kaftan, why not define auteur for the purposes of this thread, and then carry on your discussion?

 

:thumbsup:

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He certainly oversees many aspects of production but he does so much more in the manner of a producer than an actual director.

I disagree. Watching extensive documentaries on LotR and Star Wars, Lucas and Jackson appear to be VERY similiar directors when it comes to overseeing the design process, the script, the editting process, etc. Both focus heavily on visuals. I think the difference between the two as directors isn't that great. Lucas however is flawed greatly as a screenwriter.

He also claims that the primary in his films is the visuals, yet he leaves all of the design and photography to others. He is also known for being useless at directing actors, something that is essential for one to be considered a director.

Lucas has also said that sound is as important, if not more so than visuals. He invented THX sound, and then invented THX 6.1 for Episode 1 and demanded theatres install new sound systems to carry his film. He is meticulous in almost every aspect of production.

 

Very few directors (read none in a modern setting) actually lens their own films. However, Lucas has more control over his shot than most directors since so much is done in post-production which he controls fully. He storyboards, oversees animitronics, and then tells ILM exactly what he wants to see. Most directors rely on the DOP to create shots.

 

And watching behind the scenes stuff, for any piece of artwork, Lucas will often call for 300 samples and then choose one. So he has his hands deeply imbedded in the look of Star Wars.

 

Most people wouldn't realize that Doug Chaing only did Episode 1, or that none of the original trilogy design staff worked on the prequels for art. He kept a consistent visual language because of his auteur vision despite the changing art staff.

But there are ways to intepret 'Auteur' to be a person who is considered to the the author of a film in the public opinion, something that Lucas (wrongly IMO) is.

I said that some would call him an auteur. Given the dictionary defintion of the word, he certainly meets that criteria. You throw out an absolute statement that he is most definately not an auteur based on a connotation that not only have I never really come across, but also doesn't exist in the dictionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...