I believe that it was Lenny Bruce who wisecracked that Sidney Poitier had received an Oscar for LILIES OF THE FIELD because of his “convincing portrayal of a Negro.”
I think what some people have been saying above is that in an ideal world (and in an ideal film, maybe like RACHEL GETTING MARRIED), skin pigmentation shouldn’t matter.
But SOME films are specifically ABOUT racial conflict, no? It is an inherent part of the drama, as in IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (when Poitier [“MR. Tibbs”] slaps the wealthy cracker “gentleman” in the greenhouse scene). If both men had been black or both men had been white, audiences wouldn’t have jumped out of their seats back in 1967.
Sometimes, this racial domain is a bit more subtle. Someone mentioned ROCKY. I think it was CRUCIAL to have the two boxing opponents be of different races to fully and honestly explore the racial tensions in 1976. Does that alone mean that ROCKY was a racist film? I don’t think so. (There may be other racial insensitivities in ROCKY but I don’t think the casting of the leads was racist per se.)
I often recommend Dutch director Marleen Gorris’s A QUESTION OF SILENCE as an outright, if not radical, feminist film. I know it’s available as a VHS but don’t know if it’s out on DVD.
However, defining what constitutes a “feminist” film, as well as what constitutes a “sexist” or “misogynistic” movie, is often a tricky business.
For example, many Hitchcock films have been attacked as being sexist, yet in her book THE WOMEN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH feminist Tania Modleski argues that Hitch’s films are ambivalent about women: there are often strong women who battle the patriarchy (MARNIE, PSYCHO, etc.), even if they end up being victims of it; and there are also films that show the suffering of women under a male-dominated system. I’m simplifying her argument to encapsulate it in 1-2 sentences but I want to emphasize that these labels are not always cut and dried.
There’s also a film like BLOW-UP, which has an ostensibly misogynistic protagonist, the photographer, but does that mean that THE FILM (and Antonioni) espouses that same prejudice? Perhaps the film is presenting a “bad example” of a male chauvinist so that we can learn from his bad behavior. Although when the film was released in 1966, many young male viewers thought that Thomas was “cool” and “hip” and “Mod.”
In short, I’m not always sure that having “kick-ass, tough, smart and in the leagues of the men” females in a film is enough to classify it as “feminist.” Conversely, “overly blatant sexism and misogyny in a film” may not be sufficient grounds for condemning a film, especially when the film itself seems to be working against that sort of interpretation. Who would argue, for instance, that LA STRADA is a sexist film simply because Zampano abuses Gelsomina, especially when we see his heartfelt regret and remorse at the end for how he treated her?
Bruce et al.: As for HOW the translation of la politique des auteurs became the “auteur THEORY,” we probably have Andrew Sarris to blame. He was the chief advocate for the auteur view in the U.S. and edited CAHIERS DU CINEMA IN ENGLISH. His essay, “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962,” was perhaps the first use of the term in English. In 1968, Sarris published The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929–1968, which became the unofficial Bible of auteurism, at least in the U.S.
The translation could be justified if one uses the word “theory” in a loose way to mean a methodology, a critical means by which to analyze films and filmmakers. (BTW, although they sound alike, “politique” and “poetique” are two different words en francais.)
A good essay by John Hess, with a Marxist perspective, on the subject is available at www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/…/auturism1.html. Part 2 is also available free at that site.
Here’s a sample: “La politique des auteurs, a mode of film criticism,” as developed in France by Eric Rohmer, Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, and Francois Truffaut in the pages of Cahiers du Cinéma and Arts between 1951 and 1958. It is common knowledge today that their main insight and assertion was that great film directors were great artists or auteurs (a word which, for them, was synonymous with artist) in the same way that great novelists, poets, painters, and composers were artists. While it is true that they thought this, the narrow minded acceptance of this idea as the most important and unqualified tenet of French auteur criticism (see Andrew Sarris, THE AMERICAN CINEMA, New York, 1968) has led to incredible distortions and abject silliness on the part of many contemporary U.S. critics. La politique des auteurs was, in fact, a justification, couched in aesthetic terms, of a culturally conservative, politically reactionary attempt to remove film from the realm of social and political concern, in which the progressive forces of the Resistance had placed all the arts in the years immediately after the war (see Jean-Paul Sartre’s introduction to Le Temps Modernes in PATHS TO THE PRESENT, ed. Eugen Weber, New York, 1967). Once we break out of the confines of exclusively aesthetic concerns, we quickly see that the main determinant of who was an auteur was the director’s world view which he expressed through the material he was working with.
Back to FRANK P. TOMASULO: I simplify this latter statement into a director’s “Themes and Style.”
One of Bruce’s last point above has been the basis of much of the criticism of one aspect of the “theory,” the investigation into the personal lives of the directors to find clues as to why they chose certain themes and worldviews.
Although the saying goes that “one picture is worth a thousand words,” I did not understand what the two photos posted by Manny Barfer above have to do with the issue at hand, racism in cinema. Is the implication that GARDEN STATE is a racist movie? If so, I’d rather hear some evidence beyond the great photos and a “Shame on you, Zach Braff.”
Re.: The term “auteur” is no indicator of quality. The original founders of the politique des auteurs, Truffaut in particular, DID consider the status of auteur to be an indicator of quality. “Ordinary” directors were referred to as “meteurs en scene.” Remember that the CAHIERS DU CINEMA crowd, Truffaut in particular, were reacting against the so-called French Tradition of Quality — exemplified by several excellent directors who, in Francois’s opinion, did not exemplify original Themes and Style.
As for my opinion about the original question, “Does written & directed by make it more clearly an auteur film,” I would say…it depends.
@SCORPIORISING: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a classic example of what I mentioned above, namely, a film that depicts sexist ACTS (several rapes and beatings, etc.) but whose misogynistic message is filtered or focalized through a negative character, Alex. I think the film’s “message” or Theme is much more complex than just misogyny OR its opposite.
It’s been argued that Kubrick employs so many takes while shooting a film because he wants to drain the performers of all their little habitual acting “tics” (gestures, facial expressions, “star” turns, etc.). He worked old Scatman Carrothers so hard on THE SHINING that Jack Nicholson allegedly said he’d quit (or punch Stanley in the jaw — I’ve heard both versions) unless SK eased up on Scatman (who had a heart condition).
It appears that Kubrick is often not going for the audience’s “emotions.” He’s trying to get us to THINK, not identify with the characters in a conventional sense. That helps to explain the endings of STRANGELOVE, 2001, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and several other SK films.Some of the earlier films, such as PATHS OF GLORY and SPARTACUS, do rely more on audience involvement with the characters.
You may not like pseudo-Brechtian films that endeavor to make you think, rather than go through the ancient Aristotelian process of catharsis, but that seems to be part of what SK is up to.
BTW, in his early days on the air, David Letterman used to have a bit he called the “Museum of the Hard to Believe.” One night, he walked up to a plaque on the wall that purported to list all the people in the world who understood the ending of 2001. The plaque had only two names on it. :-)
@Mike Spence: I certainly agree with you that “there is a third way of addressing your audience through your characters experiences and emotions without any contrived catharsis.” I was just saying that I don’t think (later) Kubrick films are the place to find that “third way.”
BTW, I wasn’t trying to take sides in a debate about SK’s merits or demerits.
@秋刀魚の味: On the title.‘A Clockwork Orange,’ aside from the Cockney quote you provide, the title can stand alone as meaning the conjunction of a mechanism (clockwork) with something natural (an orange). This is one of the oldest themes in myth and literature: Nature vs. Civilization. The anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss said it was the DEFINING myth of many cultures and he wrote a book to prove it, THE RAW AND THE COOKED. In state of nature, we ate things raw; once we became more “civilized,” we started to cook.
Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is pretty “raw” at the outset, relatively untouched by “civilizing” influences (ineffectual parents, a horny parole officer, crude “friends,” not much schooling, etc.). Much of the film, after Alex’s arrest, is devoted to scenes of society turning him into a clockwork, a cog in the social machine: to make him into a clockwork orange.
In that sense, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE represents all of us as we adjust to the Id demands of our natures and the SuperEgo requirements of civilization.
@Rich Uncle Skeleton: I’d love to put an end to this thread. Maybe we can do it right after MY comment below. :-)
You posted the following:
“And didn’t Wong Kar Wai choose to go with different distribution companies subsequently because he was so bugged that Tarantino’s name was all over it much more prominently than his. No denying Tarantino did a good thing by opening the director up to the US market, but it’s also a telling turn of events.”
yeah, as he gained a reputation of his own, Wong Kar Wai went a different way. he didn’t need the help of Tarantino to gain exposure abroad anymore, but that’s not a judgement on Tarantino himself, because Wong Kar Wai certainly loved the exposure his films were getting when Tarantino first started distributing them, what director wouldn’t love a larger audience for his film?
Tarantino is no idiot. he knows that his name guarantees a certain level of exposure for something, which is a tremendous plus for film distribution. …
This anti-Tarantino fad sounds like it’s founded on a great deal of resentment.
BACK TO FRANK P. TOMASULO: Agreed, SOME of the QT bashing may be founded on resentment (although I think most of it is based on the uneven quality of his movies) but the PARTICULAR issue of QT putting HIS name and HIS picture on the front cover of a Wong Kar-Wai DVD (and relegating WK-W to credits on the back cover) is revolting.
Plenty of American filmmakers (Coppola, Lucas, Scorsese, etc.) have lent their names, reputations, and money to support emerging Asian filmmakers (and an aging Akira Kurosawa), BUT THEY DIDN’T PUT THEIR MUGS AND NAMES PROMINENTLY ON THE COVERS OF THE DVD BOXES!!! They were much more discreet.
I happen to think that QT’s films are not as good or as bad as the extremists say they are (I’m sorry, Mike Spence, when it comes to Tarantino I take a middle course; I see some good things and bad things in his work). I also don’t rate his films on the basis of his public statements or interviews (I maintain a separate opinion on those). However, I do take a strong stand on what he did vis-a-vis that DVD cover: it’s appalling. Yes, I’m glad he used his reputation to promote Wong Kar-Wai. The WAY he did it is reprehensible, imo.
I agree with Francisco Torres. Lucas’s USC short is much better than the released feature-length version.If the original cut is longer than the released version, I can’t see how that would improve it. The sheer l-e-n-g-t-h of THX 1138 was the problem.
I wish I had known that the short was available on the Internet. I went and bought a DVD that had THX LABYRINTH and several other short films (most of them terrible) by (mainly) other USC alums (including Robert Zemeckis).
BTW, imo, the best student films by successful auteurs were made by Scorsese (NYU) and Malick (AFI).
@Ahnmin Lee: I’m with all those who say “Enough already!” This has all been covered on other (recent) posts.
I’d suggest to Ahnmin Lee that he/she copy and paste his initial comment to one of the existing threads on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (preferably) or Why Is It Fashionable to Hate Tarantino? It’ll get a fair hearing there, plus you can read everyone else’s previously posted comments (it runs to 24-25 PAGES of pro-and con- commentary, some intelligent, some not.)
And, if I detect sarcasm there (it’s sometimes hard to tell without Emoticons), why not be different and avoid that attitude? Defend Tarantino with arguments, not “attitude.”
@Ahnmin Lee: I’m with all those who say “Enough already!” This has all been covered on other (recent) posts.
I’d suggest to Ahnmin Lee that he/she copy and paste his initial comment to one of the existing threads on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (preferably) or Why Is It Fashionable to Hate Tarantino? It’ll get a fair hearing there, plus you can read everyone else’s previously posted comments (it runs to 24-25 PAGES of pro-and con- commentary, some intelligent, some not.)
And, if I detect sarcasm there (it’s sometimes hard to tell without Emoticons), why not be different and avoid that attitude? Defend Tarantino with arguments, not “attitude.”
Mike et al.: Scorsese’s student films are IT’S NOT JUST YOU, MURRAY, THE BIG SHAVE, and WHAT’S A NICE GIRL LIKE YOU DOING IN A PLACE LIKE THIS? They’re on a VHS/DVD called SCORSESE x 4, which also includes his professional short documentary ITALIANAMERICAN.
Malick’s AFI thesis film is a Western called LANTON MILLS, and it stars Warren Oates. As far as I know, I don’t think it’s available on VHS or DVD. If anyone on this thread knows about it, please let us all know. I saw it at the Whitney Museum in NYC 30 years ago. It has a twist ending that I can’t give away.
I’m with Bobby Wise and Jake: GRAND ILLUSION is far better than RULES OF THE GAME, especially in terms of its humanistic “message.” It’s a war movie with NO battles, and the final image sums up the title even better than the times that the phrase is used in dialogue within the movie.
And I agree with the folks above who say that it’s been borrowed by STALAG 17, DOWN BY LAW, THE STATIONMASTER’S WIFE, and even TV’s HOGAN’S HEROES!
For a Renoir comedy, consider BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING.
I get your point, Mike, but SOCIAL CLASS is not such a small-scope issue. It is one of the major themes in RULES OF THE GAME.
But it’s also a major theme in GRAND ILLUSION, along with war-peace, nationality, love, loyalty, friendship, and many other BIG ideas that have applicability to “every facet of life.”
I guess I prefer GRAND ILLUSION (which deals with MANY illusions, not just war) because it addresses more ideas and themes. On the other hand, aesthetically, the long takes in RULES OF THE GAME are preferable in many ways.
Bob: Yes, that new documentary presents a rather convincing case that Polanski was railroaded by a publicity-seeking judge who broke his word, when the prosecutor and defense attorneys all agreed on a proper sentence for Polanski.
I was in Hollywood at the time of his trial, and the gossip was that he didn’t realize that the girl was only 13. He NEVER would have had sex with her if he knew she was 13. He thought she was 11. :-)
By today’s standards, with all its gore, blood, decapitations, and huge CGI violent scenes, my choice is somewhat idiosyncratic: SEVEN SINNERS, a Tay Garnet film with John Wayne, Marlene Dietrich, Broderick Crawford, and a host of character actors. There’s a barroom brawl scene in the film that seems to go on forever.
By today’s standards, with all its gore, blood, decapitations, and huge CGI violent scenes, my choice is somewhat idiosyncratic: SEVEN SINNERS, a Tay Garnet film with John Wayne, Marlene Dietrich, Broderick Crawford, and a host of character actors. There’s a barroom brawl scene in the film that seems to go on forever.
This is a REPEAT of a post I made on a Godard forum:
I recently cracked open the new 2 OR 3 THINGS DVD and viewed it. I had VERY complex and contradictory reactions.
For one, I hadn’t seen it since its initial release (when I watched it “2 or 3” times). At that time, I was VERY impressed with its content and innovative (Brechtian) style. Godard not only revolutionized cinema in that era but also how we THINK about cinema.
Today, though, those lessons have been learned, and that’s probably why the film seemed less “relevant” for today, when innovations are being made in non-Western national cinemas. Back in the day, all the references to the Vietnam War were seen as radical encouragement to those of us who participated in the antiwar movement. Likewise, all the anti-capitalist messages about mega-housing developments, consumerism, and how we all prostitute ourselves in contemporary society. To me, it’s a shame that Godard was such a damned good teacher about all those points (and film STYLE) that I now feel that I don’t have much more to learn from 2 OR 3 THINGS, except to re-appreciate its historical significance.
He was a film artist expressing himself and looking for an audience that would appreciate his vision of life and cinema. That audience happened to be the cineastes and intelligentsia, who “got” his many allusions and references to literature, philosophy, Marxism, and other films. I hope that first-time viewers of Godard’s films will appreciate his contributions for what they are, and for what they can teach us about how to watch a film.
First, a correction to the first posting:L’ATALANTE was NOT Jean Vigo’s first film. He made the following before L’ATALANTE:
À propos de Nice (1929)
Taris, roi de l’eau (1931)
Zéro de conduite (1933) and THEN
L’Atalante (1934)
If the folks at TimeOut didn’t know this, I certainly don’t take them seriously (unless they don’t count silent films, which ZERO FOR CONDUCT is NOT).
Also, why were STRIKE (Eisenstein, 1924), SHADOWS, PATHER PANCHALI, BLACK GIRL (Ousmane Sembene), and Alain Resnais’s first fictional feature, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR (1959), left out in favor of the following, all of which are good, decent films (if not brilliant for maiden efforts) but, in my opinion, not in the same league with HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR:
Blood Simple (1984)
They Live By Night (1948) Directed by Nicholas Ray
Night of the Living Dead (1968) Directed by George A Romero
Performance (1970) Directed by Nicolas Roeg & Donald Cammel
Play Misty For Me (1971)Directed by Clint Eastwood
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)Directed by Tobe Hooper
Airplane! (1980) Directed by Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams and David Zucker
Blue Collar (1978) Directed by Paul Schrader
Bleak Moments (1971) Directed by Mike Leigh
Buffalo ’66 (1997) Directed by Vincent Gallo
Eraserhead (1976) Directed by David Lynch
Gates of Heaven (1978) Directed by Errol Morris
Primer (2004) Directed by Shane Carruth
Maurice: You seem to imply that the novel LOST HORIZONS is by “Cain” (I assume you mean James M. Cain, the famous “hard-boiled” author of DOUBLE INDEMNITY, MILDRED PIERCE, and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE.)
Well, James Hilton wrote the novel on which Capra’s film was based.
As far as Ronald Coleman is concerned, I agree that he had a wonderful speaking voice, but as a FILM actor he almost always performed as if he were on the stage. That may be why he was so good in A DOUBLE LIFE; he was playing a stage actor.
I hate to admit that I have not seen either Fast Film OR La Buena Vida, and I’ve seen over 8,000 movies in my lifetime. I will vote for the others, though:
I hate to admit that I have not seen either Fast Film OR La Buena Vida, and I’ve seen over 8,000 movies in my lifetime. I will vote for the others, though:
@Robert W Peabody III: Many years ago, I read an academic vita of a photographer who claimed to have work in the “permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.” When I called to check, I was told that MOMA routinely accepted ALL donations of photographic work and put them in storage, on the off chance that the work would become valuable and famous in the years to come. It was also considered an historical and archival resource to have all those pictures in one place, to illustrate what was going on in photography in a particular era.
Then I heard a photography professor tell a group of students that they should all send their pictures to MOMA and put on their resumes that their work was “in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.” (I think this same scam was used by some filmmakers back in the day.)
I understand that this practice became so out of hand that MOMA discontinued it.
First, thanks to David Ehrenstein for the humorous and cleverly satirical “news article” about QT’s next project. Even if you’re a Tarantino acolyte, I think you’ll appreciate the comedy behind this John Stewart-style “news story.”
Second, though, I’d like to comment on this explanation that I’ve often heard about why it’s fashionable to hate Tarantino (or Spielberg or Adam Sandler or the Farrelly Brothers, etc. etc. ad infinitum). There may even be SOME people out there who subconsciously “hate” these people because they’re “popular” or because of jealousy or spite. However, the VAST MAJORITY of people that I know who object to QT’s films (or his public persona) are able to articulate good reasons for their reservations (or outright hatred). It’s just too easy to dismiss those critics (including intelligent folks on this thread) who point out specific examples of a director’s shortcomings by citing scenes, characters, and images from his films. (I don’t have to reiterate those; they’re all over this topic and the other recent post about INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.) It’s an “ad hominem” argument to just say that the person you disagree with has a different opinion because “Tarantino is popular,” or “they’re envious of his success.” Why not deal with the actual ISSUES?
Likewise, to show that I’m “fair and balanced,” I’ve come to appreciate a FEW subtleties in QT’s otherwise in-your-face work by reading his fan’s analyses. Although I appreciate certain individual SCENES in his movies, I’m still not a fan, but I see QT as a filmmaker who I hope will mature and develop as Spielberg did, or the Beatles did. We can always hope!
I tend to agree with Claud Harding that “It’s not a matter of ‘either/or’, it is a matter of what is emotionally and psychologically appropriate for the scene you are shooting.”
Having taught film production, I see how many students ruin their films, though, by using UNMOTIVATED “Shakycam” effects. I try to convey the idea that a tripod should be the DEFAULT position and that one must have a clear and specific reason for using a handheld camera (something more than “because I think it’s cool!”).
Re.: student filmmaking: the “Film School look” nowadays mainly means excessive and detrimental use of the Shakycam. Many beginning filmmakers do not have the necessary bodily control to manage proper handheld cinematography, just because they haven’t had enough practice at it. Furthermore, they are usually watching their rushes on a small computer screen, where the shakiness does not seem as exaggerated as when the film is finally projected on a big screen in an auditorium — and then, surprise surprise, the audience gets nauseated from the viewing experience.
Finally, the title of MARSHALL McLUHAN"s book was actually THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE (that’s right: mAssage).
Racism in Film over 3 years ago
I believe that it was Lenny Bruce who wisecracked that Sidney Poitier had received an Oscar for LILIES OF THE FIELD because of his “convincing portrayal of a Negro.”
I think what some people have been saying above is that in an ideal world (and in an ideal film, maybe like RACHEL GETTING MARRIED), skin pigmentation shouldn’t matter.
But SOME films are specifically ABOUT racial conflict, no? It is an inherent part of the drama, as in IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (when Poitier [“MR. Tibbs”] slaps the wealthy cracker “gentleman” in the greenhouse scene). If both men had been black or both men had been white, audiences wouldn’t have jumped out of their seats back in 1967.
Sometimes, this racial domain is a bit more subtle. Someone mentioned ROCKY. I think it was CRUCIAL to have the two boxing opponents be of different races to fully and honestly explore the racial tensions in 1976. Does that alone mean that ROCKY was a racist film? I don’t think so. (There may be other racial insensitivities in ROCKY but I don’t think the casting of the leads was racist per se.)
Go to Comment
Feminism, sexism and misogyny in film over 3 years ago
I often recommend Dutch director Marleen Gorris’s A QUESTION OF SILENCE as an outright, if not radical, feminist film. I know it’s available as a VHS but don’t know if it’s out on DVD.
However, defining what constitutes a “feminist” film, as well as what constitutes a “sexist” or “misogynistic” movie, is often a tricky business.
For example, many Hitchcock films have been attacked as being sexist, yet in her book THE WOMEN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH feminist Tania Modleski argues that Hitch’s films are ambivalent about women: there are often strong women who battle the patriarchy (MARNIE, PSYCHO, etc.), even if they end up being victims of it; and there are also films that show the suffering of women under a male-dominated system. I’m simplifying her argument to encapsulate it in 1-2 sentences but I want to emphasize that these labels are not always cut and dried.
There’s also a film like BLOW-UP, which has an ostensibly misogynistic protagonist, the photographer, but does that mean that THE FILM (and Antonioni) espouses that same prejudice? Perhaps the film is presenting a “bad example” of a male chauvinist so that we can learn from his bad behavior. Although when the film was released in 1966, many young male viewers thought that Thomas was “cool” and “hip” and “Mod.”
In short, I’m not always sure that having “kick-ass, tough, smart and in the leagues of the men” females in a film is enough to classify it as “feminist.” Conversely, “overly blatant sexism and misogyny in a film” may not be sufficient grounds for condemning a film, especially when the film itself seems to be working against that sort of interpretation. Who would argue, for instance, that LA STRADA is a sexist film simply because Zampano abuses Gelsomina, especially when we see his heartfelt regret and remorse at the end for how he treated her?
Go to Comment
What's theoretical about the auteur theory? over 3 years ago
Bruce et al.: As for HOW the translation of la politique des auteurs became the “auteur THEORY,” we probably have Andrew Sarris to blame. He was the chief advocate for the auteur view in the U.S. and edited CAHIERS DU CINEMA IN ENGLISH. His essay, “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962,” was perhaps the first use of the term in English. In 1968, Sarris published The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929–1968, which became the unofficial Bible of auteurism, at least in the U.S.
The translation could be justified if one uses the word “theory” in a loose way to mean a methodology, a critical means by which to analyze films and filmmakers. (BTW, although they sound alike, “politique” and “poetique” are two different words en francais.)
A good essay by John Hess, with a Marxist perspective, on the subject is available at www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/…/auturism1.html. Part 2 is also available free at that site.
Here’s a sample: “La politique des auteurs, a mode of film criticism,” as developed in France by Eric Rohmer, Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, and Francois Truffaut in the pages of Cahiers du Cinéma and Arts between 1951 and 1958. It is common knowledge today that their main insight and assertion was that great film directors were great artists or auteurs (a word which, for them, was synonymous with artist) in the same way that great novelists, poets, painters, and composers were artists. While it is true that they thought this, the narrow minded acceptance of this idea as the most important and unqualified tenet of French auteur criticism (see Andrew Sarris, THE AMERICAN CINEMA, New York, 1968) has led to incredible distortions and abject silliness on the part of many contemporary U.S. critics. La politique des auteurs was, in fact, a justification, couched in aesthetic terms, of a culturally conservative, politically reactionary attempt to remove film from the realm of social and political concern, in which the progressive forces of the Resistance had placed all the arts in the years immediately after the war (see Jean-Paul Sartre’s introduction to Le Temps Modernes in PATHS TO THE PRESENT, ed. Eugen Weber, New York, 1967). Once we break out of the confines of exclusively aesthetic concerns, we quickly see that the main determinant of who was an auteur was the director’s world view which he expressed through the material he was working with.
Back to FRANK P. TOMASULO: I simplify this latter statement into a director’s “Themes and Style.”
One of Bruce’s last point above has been the basis of much of the criticism of one aspect of the “theory,” the investigation into the personal lives of the directors to find clues as to why they chose certain themes and worldviews.
Go to Comment
Racism in Film over 3 years ago
Although the saying goes that “one picture is worth a thousand words,” I did not understand what the two photos posted by Manny Barfer above have to do with the issue at hand, racism in cinema. Is the implication that GARDEN STATE is a racist movie? If so, I’d rather hear some evidence beyond the great photos and a “Shame on you, Zach Braff.”
Is it the scene with the young black man?
Go to Comment
Does written and directed by make it more clearly an auteur's film? over 3 years ago
Re.: The term “auteur” is no indicator of quality. The original founders of the politique des auteurs, Truffaut in particular, DID consider the status of auteur to be an indicator of quality. “Ordinary” directors were referred to as “meteurs en scene.” Remember that the CAHIERS DU CINEMA crowd, Truffaut in particular, were reacting against the so-called French Tradition of Quality — exemplified by several excellent directors who, in Francois’s opinion, did not exemplify original Themes and Style.
As for my opinion about the original question, “Does written & directed by make it more clearly an auteur film,” I would say…it depends.
Go to Comment
Racism in Film over 3 years ago
Thanks, Manny. That explains it. ?????
Go to Comment
Feminism, sexism and misogyny in film over 3 years ago
@SCORPIORISING: A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a classic example of what I mentioned above, namely, a film that depicts sexist ACTS (several rapes and beatings, etc.) but whose misogynistic message is filtered or focalized through a negative character, Alex. I think the film’s “message” or Theme is much more complex than just misogyny OR its opposite.
Go to Comment
Who's better than Stanley Kubrick? over 3 years ago
It’s been argued that Kubrick employs so many takes while shooting a film because he wants to drain the performers of all their little habitual acting “tics” (gestures, facial expressions, “star” turns, etc.). He worked old Scatman Carrothers so hard on THE SHINING that Jack Nicholson allegedly said he’d quit (or punch Stanley in the jaw — I’ve heard both versions) unless SK eased up on Scatman (who had a heart condition).
It appears that Kubrick is often not going for the audience’s “emotions.” He’s trying to get us to THINK, not identify with the characters in a conventional sense. That helps to explain the endings of STRANGELOVE, 2001, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and several other SK films.Some of the earlier films, such as PATHS OF GLORY and SPARTACUS, do rely more on audience involvement with the characters.
You may not like pseudo-Brechtian films that endeavor to make you think, rather than go through the ancient Aristotelian process of catharsis, but that seems to be part of what SK is up to.
BTW, in his early days on the air, David Letterman used to have a bit he called the “Museum of the Hard to Believe.” One night, he walked up to a plaque on the wall that purported to list all the people in the world who understood the ending of 2001. The plaque had only two names on it. :-)
Go to Comment
Who's better than Stanley Kubrick? over 3 years ago
@Mike Spence: I certainly agree with you that “there is a third way of addressing your audience through your characters experiences and emotions without any contrived catharsis.” I was just saying that I don’t think (later) Kubrick films are the place to find that “third way.”
BTW, I wasn’t trying to take sides in a debate about SK’s merits or demerits.
@秋刀魚の味: On the title.‘A Clockwork Orange,’ aside from the Cockney quote you provide, the title can stand alone as meaning the conjunction of a mechanism (clockwork) with something natural (an orange). This is one of the oldest themes in myth and literature: Nature vs. Civilization. The anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss said it was the DEFINING myth of many cultures and he wrote a book to prove it, THE RAW AND THE COOKED. In state of nature, we ate things raw; once we became more “civilized,” we started to cook.
Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is pretty “raw” at the outset, relatively untouched by “civilizing” influences (ineffectual parents, a horny parole officer, crude “friends,” not much schooling, etc.). Much of the film, after Alex’s arrest, is devoted to scenes of society turning him into a clockwork, a cog in the social machine: to make him into a clockwork orange.
In that sense, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE represents all of us as we adjust to the Id demands of our natures and the SuperEgo requirements of civilization.
Go to Comment
Why has it become "fashionable" to hate Tarantino? over 3 years ago
@Rich Uncle Skeleton: I’d love to put an end to this thread. Maybe we can do it right after MY comment below. :-)
You posted the following:
“And didn’t Wong Kar Wai choose to go with different distribution companies subsequently because he was so bugged that Tarantino’s name was all over it much more prominently than his. No denying Tarantino did a good thing by opening the director up to the US market, but it’s also a telling turn of events.”
yeah, as he gained a reputation of his own, Wong Kar Wai went a different way. he didn’t need the help of Tarantino to gain exposure abroad anymore, but that’s not a judgement on Tarantino himself, because Wong Kar Wai certainly loved the exposure his films were getting when Tarantino first started distributing them, what director wouldn’t love a larger audience for his film?
Tarantino is no idiot. he knows that his name guarantees a certain level of exposure for something, which is a tremendous plus for film distribution. …
This anti-Tarantino fad sounds like it’s founded on a great deal of resentment.
BACK TO FRANK P. TOMASULO: Agreed, SOME of the QT bashing may be founded on resentment (although I think most of it is based on the uneven quality of his movies) but the PARTICULAR issue of QT putting HIS name and HIS picture on the front cover of a Wong Kar-Wai DVD (and relegating WK-W to credits on the back cover) is revolting.
Plenty of American filmmakers (Coppola, Lucas, Scorsese, etc.) have lent their names, reputations, and money to support emerging Asian filmmakers (and an aging Akira Kurosawa), BUT THEY DIDN’T PUT THEIR MUGS AND NAMES PROMINENTLY ON THE COVERS OF THE DVD BOXES!!! They were much more discreet.
I happen to think that QT’s films are not as good or as bad as the extremists say they are (I’m sorry, Mike Spence, when it comes to Tarantino I take a middle course; I see some good things and bad things in his work). I also don’t rate his films on the basis of his public statements or interviews (I maintain a separate opinion on those). However, I do take a strong stand on what he did vis-a-vis that DVD cover: it’s appalling. Yes, I’m glad he used his reputation to promote Wong Kar-Wai. The WAY he did it is reprehensible, imo.
Go to Comment
WE WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL CUT!! over 3 years ago
I agree with Francisco Torres. Lucas’s USC short is much better than the released feature-length version.If the original cut is longer than the released version, I can’t see how that would improve it. The sheer l-e-n-g-t-h of THX 1138 was the problem.
I wish I had known that the short was available on the Internet. I went and bought a DVD that had THX LABYRINTH and several other short films (most of them terrible) by (mainly) other USC alums (including Robert Zemeckis).
BTW, imo, the best student films by successful auteurs were made by Scorsese (NYU) and Malick (AFI).
Go to Comment
Tarantino's main strength as a filmmaker over 3 years ago
@Ahnmin Lee: I’m with all those who say “Enough already!” This has all been covered on other (recent) posts.
I’d suggest to Ahnmin Lee that he/she copy and paste his initial comment to one of the existing threads on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (preferably) or Why Is It Fashionable to Hate Tarantino? It’ll get a fair hearing there, plus you can read everyone else’s previously posted comments (it runs to 24-25 PAGES of pro-and con- commentary, some intelligent, some not.)
And, if I detect sarcasm there (it’s sometimes hard to tell without Emoticons), why not be different and avoid that attitude? Defend Tarantino with arguments, not “attitude.”
Go to Comment
Tarantino's main strength as a filmmaker over 3 years ago
@Ahnmin Lee: I’m with all those who say “Enough already!” This has all been covered on other (recent) posts.
I’d suggest to Ahnmin Lee that he/she copy and paste his initial comment to one of the existing threads on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (preferably) or Why Is It Fashionable to Hate Tarantino? It’ll get a fair hearing there, plus you can read everyone else’s previously posted comments (it runs to 24-25 PAGES of pro-and con- commentary, some intelligent, some not.)
And, if I detect sarcasm there (it’s sometimes hard to tell without Emoticons), why not be different and avoid that attitude? Defend Tarantino with arguments, not “attitude.”
Go to Comment
WE WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL CUT!! over 3 years ago
Mike et al.: Scorsese’s student films are IT’S NOT JUST YOU, MURRAY, THE BIG SHAVE, and WHAT’S A NICE GIRL LIKE YOU DOING IN A PLACE LIKE THIS? They’re on a VHS/DVD called SCORSESE x 4, which also includes his professional short documentary ITALIANAMERICAN.
Malick’s AFI thesis film is a Western called LANTON MILLS, and it stars Warren Oates. As far as I know, I don’t think it’s available on VHS or DVD. If anyone on this thread knows about it, please let us all know. I saw it at the Whitney Museum in NYC 30 years ago. It has a twist ending that I can’t give away.
Go to Comment
Any Thoughts on Grand Illusion? over 3 years ago
I’m with Bobby Wise and Jake: GRAND ILLUSION is far better than RULES OF THE GAME, especially in terms of its humanistic “message.” It’s a war movie with NO battles, and the final image sums up the title even better than the times that the phrase is used in dialogue within the movie.
And I agree with the folks above who say that it’s been borrowed by STALAG 17, DOWN BY LAW, THE STATIONMASTER’S WIFE, and even TV’s HOGAN’S HEROES!
For a Renoir comedy, consider BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING.
Go to Comment
Any Thoughts on Grand Illusion? over 3 years ago
I get your point, Mike, but SOCIAL CLASS is not such a small-scope issue. It is one of the major themes in RULES OF THE GAME.
But it’s also a major theme in GRAND ILLUSION, along with war-peace, nationality, love, loyalty, friendship, and many other BIG ideas that have applicability to “every facet of life.”
I guess I prefer GRAND ILLUSION (which deals with MANY illusions, not just war) because it addresses more ideas and themes. On the other hand, aesthetically, the long takes in RULES OF THE GAME are preferable in many ways.
Go to Comment
Is the "rethreading" of Polanski's Suspicion worth the trouble? over 3 years ago
Maurice: Did Polanski make a film called SUSPICION? I don’t recall it. Perhaps you’re thinking of REPULSION or FRANTIC.
IMDB doesn’t list it under any of his directorial efforts. Maybe SUSPICION is a new translation of something else? Please explain.
Go to Comment
Is the "rethreading" of Polanski's Suspicion worth the trouble? over 3 years ago
Bob: Yes, that new documentary presents a rather convincing case that Polanski was railroaded by a publicity-seeking judge who broke his word, when the prosecutor and defense attorneys all agreed on a proper sentence for Polanski.
I was in Hollywood at the time of his trial, and the gossip was that he didn’t realize that the girl was only 13. He NEVER would have had sex with her if he knew she was 13. He thought she was 11. :-)
Go to Comment
most violent movies you have ever seen over 3 years ago
By today’s standards, with all its gore, blood, decapitations, and huge CGI violent scenes, my choice is somewhat idiosyncratic: SEVEN SINNERS, a Tay Garnet film with John Wayne, Marlene Dietrich, Broderick Crawford, and a host of character actors. There’s a barroom brawl scene in the film that seems to go on forever.
Go to Comment
Most violent films you've seen over 3 years ago
By today’s standards, with all its gore, blood, decapitations, and huge CGI violent scenes, my choice is somewhat idiosyncratic: SEVEN SINNERS, a Tay Garnet film with John Wayne, Marlene Dietrich, Broderick Crawford, and a host of character actors. There’s a barroom brawl scene in the film that seems to go on forever.
Go to Comment
2 Or 3 Things I know About Her over 3 years ago
This is a REPEAT of a post I made on a Godard forum:
I recently cracked open the new 2 OR 3 THINGS DVD and viewed it. I had VERY complex and contradictory reactions.
For one, I hadn’t seen it since its initial release (when I watched it “2 or 3” times). At that time, I was VERY impressed with its content and innovative (Brechtian) style. Godard not only revolutionized cinema in that era but also how we THINK about cinema.
Today, though, those lessons have been learned, and that’s probably why the film seemed less “relevant” for today, when innovations are being made in non-Western national cinemas. Back in the day, all the references to the Vietnam War were seen as radical encouragement to those of us who participated in the antiwar movement. Likewise, all the anti-capitalist messages about mega-housing developments, consumerism, and how we all prostitute ourselves in contemporary society. To me, it’s a shame that Godard was such a damned good teacher about all those points (and film STYLE) that I now feel that I don’t have much more to learn from 2 OR 3 THINGS, except to re-appreciate its historical significance.
He was a film artist expressing himself and looking for an audience that would appreciate his vision of life and cinema. That audience happened to be the cineastes and intelligentsia, who “got” his many allusions and references to literature, philosophy, Marxism, and other films. I hope that first-time viewers of Godard’s films will appreciate his contributions for what they are, and for what they can teach us about how to watch a film.
Go to Comment
Greatest Film Taglines of All TIme. over 3 years ago
As a variation on one mentioned earlier: "SNUFF: "The film that could only be made in South America…WHERE LIFE IS CHEAP!”
there’s THE HARDER THEY COME: “…In Jamaica, where life … and marijuana … are cheap.”
Another interesting tagline is from THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI: “You must become Caligari!”
Go to Comment
The 50 greatest debut movies per TIME OUT over 3 years ago
First, a correction to the first posting:L’ATALANTE was NOT Jean Vigo’s first film. He made the following before L’ATALANTE:
À propos de Nice (1929)
Taris, roi de l’eau (1931)
Zéro de conduite (1933) and THEN
L’Atalante (1934)
If the folks at TimeOut didn’t know this, I certainly don’t take them seriously (unless they don’t count silent films, which ZERO FOR CONDUCT is NOT).
Also, why were STRIKE (Eisenstein, 1924), SHADOWS, PATHER PANCHALI, BLACK GIRL (Ousmane Sembene), and Alain Resnais’s first fictional feature, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR (1959), left out in favor of the following, all of which are good, decent films (if not brilliant for maiden efforts) but, in my opinion, not in the same league with HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR:
Blood Simple (1984)
They Live By Night (1948) Directed by Nicholas Ray
Night of the Living Dead (1968) Directed by George A Romero
Performance (1970) Directed by Nicolas Roeg & Donald Cammel
Play Misty For Me (1971)Directed by Clint Eastwood
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)Directed by Tobe Hooper
Airplane! (1980) Directed by Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams and David Zucker
Blue Collar (1978) Directed by Paul Schrader
Bleak Moments (1971) Directed by Mike Leigh
Buffalo ’66 (1997) Directed by Vincent Gallo
Eraserhead (1976) Directed by David Lynch
Gates of Heaven (1978) Directed by Errol Morris
Primer (2004) Directed by Shane Carruth
Who ARE these people from Time Out????
Go to Comment
Ronald Colman over 3 years ago
Maurice: You seem to imply that the novel LOST HORIZONS is by “Cain” (I assume you mean James M. Cain, the famous “hard-boiled” author of DOUBLE INDEMNITY, MILDRED PIERCE, and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE.)
Well, James Hilton wrote the novel on which Capra’s film was based.
As far as Ronald Coleman is concerned, I agree that he had a wonderful speaking voice, but as a FILM actor he almost always performed as if he were on the stage. That may be why he was so good in A DOUBLE LIFE; he was playing a stage actor.
Go to Comment
WORLD CUP: VOTING- ITALY V TAIWAN over 3 years ago
I also have no time to comment or to try to persuade my fellow auteurs voters, but here are my picks:
L’Avventura 1 — A Time to Live and a Time to Die 0
Voyage in Italy 1 — A Touch of Zen 0
I Vitelloni 1 — A Most Distant Course 0
Go to Comment
WORLD CUP: VOTING- AUSTRIA V CHILE over 3 years ago
I hate to admit that I have not seen either Fast Film OR La Buena Vida, and I’ve seen over 8,000 movies in my lifetime. I will vote for the others, though:
ANTARES 0 v EL TOPO 1
THE SEVENTH CONTINENT 1 v Jackal
Go to Comment
WORLD CUP: VOTING- AUSTRIA V CHILE over 3 years ago
I hate to admit that I have not seen either Fast Film OR La Buena Vida, and I’ve seen over 8,000 movies in my lifetime. I will vote for the others, though:
ANTARES 0 v EL TOPO 1
THE SEVENTH CONTINENT 1 v Jackal
Go to Comment
Did the NEA ruin art? over 3 years ago
@Robert W Peabody III: Many years ago, I read an academic vita of a photographer who claimed to have work in the “permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.” When I called to check, I was told that MOMA routinely accepted ALL donations of photographic work and put them in storage, on the off chance that the work would become valuable and famous in the years to come. It was also considered an historical and archival resource to have all those pictures in one place, to illustrate what was going on in photography in a particular era.
Then I heard a photography professor tell a group of students that they should all send their pictures to MOMA and put on their resumes that their work was “in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.” (I think this same scam was used by some filmmakers back in the day.)
I understand that this practice became so out of hand that MOMA discontinued it.
Go to Comment
Why has it become "fashionable" to hate Tarantino? over 3 years ago
First, thanks to David Ehrenstein for the humorous and cleverly satirical “news article” about QT’s next project. Even if you’re a Tarantino acolyte, I think you’ll appreciate the comedy behind this John Stewart-style “news story.”
Second, though, I’d like to comment on this explanation that I’ve often heard about why it’s fashionable to hate Tarantino (or Spielberg or Adam Sandler or the Farrelly Brothers, etc. etc. ad infinitum). There may even be SOME people out there who subconsciously “hate” these people because they’re “popular” or because of jealousy or spite. However, the VAST MAJORITY of people that I know who object to QT’s films (or his public persona) are able to articulate good reasons for their reservations (or outright hatred). It’s just too easy to dismiss those critics (including intelligent folks on this thread) who point out specific examples of a director’s shortcomings by citing scenes, characters, and images from his films. (I don’t have to reiterate those; they’re all over this topic and the other recent post about INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.) It’s an “ad hominem” argument to just say that the person you disagree with has a different opinion because “Tarantino is popular,” or “they’re envious of his success.” Why not deal with the actual ISSUES?
Likewise, to show that I’m “fair and balanced,” I’ve come to appreciate a FEW subtleties in QT’s otherwise in-your-face work by reading his fan’s analyses. Although I appreciate certain individual SCENES in his movies, I’m still not a fan, but I see QT as a filmmaker who I hope will mature and develop as Spielberg did, or the Beatles did. We can always hope!
Go to Comment
Handheld or Tripod? over 3 years ago
I tend to agree with Claud Harding that “It’s not a matter of ‘either/or’, it is a matter of what is emotionally and psychologically appropriate for the scene you are shooting.”
Having taught film production, I see how many students ruin their films, though, by using UNMOTIVATED “Shakycam” effects. I try to convey the idea that a tripod should be the DEFAULT position and that one must have a clear and specific reason for using a handheld camera (something more than “because I think it’s cool!”).
Re.: student filmmaking: the “Film School look” nowadays mainly means excessive and detrimental use of the Shakycam. Many beginning filmmakers do not have the necessary bodily control to manage proper handheld cinematography, just because they haven’t had enough practice at it. Furthermore, they are usually watching their rushes on a small computer screen, where the shakiness does not seem as exaggerated as when the film is finally projected on a big screen in an auditorium — and then, surprise surprise, the audience gets nauseated from the viewing experience.
Finally, the title of MARSHALL McLUHAN"s book was actually THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE (that’s right: mAssage).
Go to Comment