I couldn’t agree more with you Luke. I have to say that his films are precise and interesting. No idea why he doesn’t have a page on The Auteurs.
we have to be patient. Easy Rider is not in the database yet either, if I’m not mistaken.
I love Fincher, too—but I think there’s a distinction here between directors like Fincher, who are making grade-A popcorn flicks, and someone like Ingmar Bergman, who was bringing poetry to the film medium.
I don’t think it’s a snobbish distinction, either. There is definitely a difference. Is Fincher consistently interesting? He is to me. Precise and interesting? I agree with that, too.
But his output has not yet reached the level of fine art that reaches the levels of the most revered directors. There’s a natural tendency for us to laud the one we like the most as being worthy of praise amongst the best that ever lived. But even the brief film history is a very long time, and Fincher’s just getting started.
“Patient.” I agree with that the most.
I don’t know why The Auteurs have Guillermo Del Toro on the database but not David Fincher. I’m not comparing these directors—at least not career-wise——they are great visual filmmakers but once you see their films, you will notice that the stories of their films are very comparable. You decide!
I’m sorry but Fincher does not make grade-A pop corn flicks. The closest he ever comes to a popcorn flick is Panic Room, the very weak Alien 3 and maybe the Game. Benjamin Button in my opinion is highly under-appreciated, therefore I would not count it as a popcorn movie.
Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac are as far from a popcorn movie as possible. And if Christopher Nolan (somebody who really does make grade-A popcorn movies) has a page on the Auteurs, than Fincher definetely should, too…
I think that’s a valid point. In the locker room of del Toro’s mind, surely Hellboy doesn’t shower with Pan’s Labyrinth.
I’m very interested to see how he’ll make his influence felt in animation for the upcoming Goon comic adaptation and the new Heavy Metal omnibus.
Seven, Fight Club, and Zodiac are all films I love for different reasons, but they don’t illuminate the human condition the way 2001, Wild Strawberries, or Magnolia does. They don’t reach the level of high art.
And so what? There’s room for everything. Love what you love, but in order to be intellectually honest you must concede there are levels of art that accomplish things at different levels of importance.
Stephen King is not Shakespeare. That doesn’t keep me from loving The Gunslinger, or denigrate it in any way.
All I’m saying is, I bet if you and I compared our favorite films lists, we’d find we park our cars in the same garage. That being said, this site is (sometimes) about recognizing those who rise above pop culture and the moment in which their art was created—those whose art is timeless and a window into what it means to be human, not just what it means to be a detective in San Fransisco in the late 1970’s.
Obviously, any and all debate is welcome.
hmmm, I disagree. I think this site is (or should) be celebrating art in more aspects than just the creme de la creme. The Dark Knight is in the database? Certainly not a film which is a window into what it means to be human.
I think Se7en does reach the level of high art, of course I wouldn’t compare it Kubrick, depth-wise, but then again what is the standard? How do you measure importance of art?
It’s a great question and very subjective. So my opinion is only my own—that’s what discussions are for, no?
Yes, I think this site does and should celebrate more than the absolute pinnacle of film art—but you have to admit there is a difference between this site and AICN, CHUD, /Film, and the rest (not to mention the IMDB message boards). That’s the difference I’m talking about.
But like I said, there’s room for everything. And I would like to hear your thoughts on Seven as high art. Like I said, I really dug it.
I don’t like this designation as art as “high” or not.
Art is art, when we try to parse it out by different qualifications we’ve lost sight of the whole point.
If it is honest it is art.
Beyond that you either personally enjoy it or not, there is no high or low.
Once we start traipsing upon that slippery slope we’ll find a reason to say who the real “Germans” are and start putting people into camps.
(My dramatic license should be revoked, eh?)
yes, surely.
of course there is a difference. But I think even snobbery should have its limits :)
Seven, besides being one of the most suspensful movies I have ever seen, is in my opinion a film about many different topics. I guess you could say it examines the way an individual fits into the society surrounding him (especially our modern one). Hence the nameless city. Hence the completely different world-views of the two main characters. I don’t think it as a film about a serial killer, it is a film about (modern) society, I won’t say humanity, that would be too broad.
What I personally really like is that the film never lectures, never turns into a pure sociological essay but blends these elements and those of a police thriller together. The bleak style and wonderful acting complete the film and here you can probably find the most of Fincher as an Auteur.
I think THE GAME is incredibly elegant. And hilarious. Great shaggy-dog joke.
@Surrealist: I get you, and I bristle against ‘camping’ in just the way you mention, but that wasn’t my intention in trying to differentiate between directors like Fincher and Kubrick (in the current thread’s example). All honest art is just as justified as any other, but I would still say that a film like Seven has completely different aspirations than a film like 2001.
And I will state, again, I don’t have a problem with that. I just think they serve different artistic purposes, one leaning more heavily toward entertainment than enlightenment. But that’s just me, and this is what I think. I’m indulging in an intellectual discussion about film and art and having fun doing it, and I don’t begrudge you your opinion or favorite films or anything like that.
“Art” may be indefinable, but the goals and accomplishments of a given piece certainly are.
@Fandorin-San: Man, I totally agree with everything you just said. I LOVE Seven. I’ve watched it at least twenty times, including the multiple (and very, very interesting) commentaries on the DVD. In fact, it’s one of the first DVDs I ever bought, way back in the day.
But I still wouldn’t put anything by Fincher—yet—into the same conversation as someone like Kubrick. I still think there’s a distinction.
Am I alone, or am I twisting in the wind on this thread? ;)
My own two cents:
I don’t see what is meant by levels of art. I think as long as you tell a story, and tell it well, you illuminate the human condition. That’s really all there is to it.
I mean, that’s what Shakespeare did (who, it must be said, was considered to NOT be a purveyor of art in his own time).
On Fincher, for me, his last six include 2 brilliant, 2 good, and 2 boring, which actually puts him about on par for directors that are normally considered to be masters. Given that four of those films have film pages on the site, I don’t see why he doesn’t deserve a page of his own.
A somewhat incongruous example, but it still gets my point across (perhaps better than I’ve been able so far):
Beethoven does not equal ACDC.
And I LOVE ACDC, but they’re not the same thing. That’s all I’m trying to say.
“A rose by any other name…”
“One man’s garbage…”
etc.
Yeah, but I think that reduces the discussion to a point where you can’t discuss the subject anymore, and what fun is that?
It’s like I said, “This is a steak.” And you said, “This is a banana.” And someone came in and said, “Fuck that, it’s all food.”
Well, it is all food.
I mean, steak and bananas provide different kinds of nutrition, but neither provides a better kind of nutrition than the other. Similarly, Beethoven and ACDC do different things, but that in of itself does not mean one is better than the other.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to imply otherwise, but that is how it comes across – sorry if I misinterpret. You can make the point (and I guess you are) that one or the other is more appropriate for enshrinement on Auteurs, if not necessarily better. But I think I would like it better if Auteurs focuses on all kinds of films/flmmakers that have some degree of universal acclaim, regardless of whether they’re steak or bananas.
“Better” is not a distinction I was trying to make. Importance is what I’ve been flailing about.
I said earlier that we’d all probably pick many of the same favorite flicks, but I still hold that not all are equal. And yes, that is entirely subjective.
And I can quote every line from Die Hard, Cadyshack, and all the non-English parts of Return of the Jedi, so there ;)
Importance is even more slippery to define than quality. Important to whom? Every film is important to those who love it.
I suppose one coud argue for importance in terms of influence on the film world, but if that’s the case, we can’t really put anything in until decades after the fact.
Anything can be argued. Anything can be filmed. To me importance in this context (that is, in the context of art), is that it has a lasting impact on our understanding of the human condition that supersedes current pop culture.
And maybe I’m wrong and maybe I’m right and maybe either way it IS impossible to determine importance until decades after… We’d still be talking about it, right?
By the way, if I could amend my earlier argument from ‘bananas’ to ‘Popsicles’, your metaphor doesn’t work so well. Heh.
I can see your point on superseding current pop coulture, though I’m not sure any film can impact our understanding of the human condition … unless by “our” you are referring to some particular group of people, in which case we’re back in the realm of subjectivity. Some people can, and do, learn as much, or more, about human nature from Stephen King than from Shakespeare.
I suppose the real stumbling block for me is I’m making assumptions about what the purpose of Auteurs should be, which is a bit of a folly as I’ve not seen a mission statement and only just joined a mere few days ago.
Anyway, on the topic of Fincher, my main argument remains mathematical. If 4 of his last 6 have their own pages, maybe he should have his, too. But I’m not to het up about it. I’m more than willing to wait and see.
Wow I am impressed with the discussion in this thread. Despite some of us agreeing, what Josh said was pretty much the forum equivalent to chopping off your finger and jumping into a shark tank, but everyone has remained calm and respectfully argued.
I somewhat agree with Josh that there are different levels of art and film. His steak/banana and Beethoven/ACDC examples are all true, but what I disagree on is where Fincher lies. I feel Fincher is almost similar to Spielberg in that he makes films that have the main goal to entertain, but are also great great films. Fincher is not Kubrick or Bergman or Dreyer, but most people aren’t. Just because someone isn’t fully succeeding at creating the best “high” art doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered it. Is Fincher an auteur? It depends on the definition. Does he deserve a page? Sure it wouldn’t bother me, but I don’t really care all that much.
@M0RKELEB: By ‘our’ I’m implying ‘all of us’ but what I truly mean is ‘just me’. Subjectivity is all.
The most interesting conversations I’ve found on this site (again, subjective all over it) have been more in line with what I’m looking for. I didn’t found the site, though.
Woo subjectivity :)
It’s time for this here shark to get to sleep, but might I say it’s been a fun debate.
@DREW: Thanks, and I agree that I don’t really care all that much about who has a page either.
I find myself having a personally filmic epiphany lately wherein I’m not even sure I’m comfortable including Spielberg in my top, top list. Which is CRAZY, since the man has made so many of my favorite films (including one that I believe to be one of THE best about what it means to be a child—that’s another thread).
@M0RKLEB: When I read your last comment, what I heard was the Coen’s line from No Country (which fits just fine):
“Whoa, differences.”
Indeed.
Cheers. Sleep and a hangover await my Irish ass.
Since they are still in the process of building the profiles, adding films etc., auteur or not, Fincher will have a page soon – my intution..
Spot on Josh….I like what you said here…
Beethoven does not equal ACDC. And I LOVE ACDC, but they’re not the same thing. That’s all I’m trying to say.
There is a fine line between auteur and a great director, may be not very easily distinguishable and identifiable based on consistency, poetry on screen, amazing framing, innovation, master story telling but a sensibility that reaches across to the viewer and holds the test of time and tastes.
Fincher’s Zodiac is a spike in that direction, but we need to see more and he needs to do more…
i’m all for criticizing the type of dogmatic, antiquated thinking that says ac/dc could never hope to be as important or serious as beethoven. why? roll over beethoven.
the poetry of shakespeare doesnt illuminate the human condition for me in a more profound, direct, pertinent, or powerful way than the poetry of tupac shakur. down with shakespeare and the king’s english. long live thug life.
i’m a postmodernist in the sense that i make no distinction between high and low culture. thats just class warfare anyway. and needless to say, “high” or “serious” art is always represented by old white males. why? their tradition deserves to be revolted against, just for the sake of revolting, among other things. their canon doesnt mean shit to me, and i dont need to acquiese to it a priori. i’d rather attack it a priori. (ooooooh, blasphemy!)
Luke
Just a quick question: Does anyone know why David doesn’t have a page on this, The Auteurs, database. He is one of the most consistent, and consistently interesting filmmakers working in the US within the last 20 years.