It’s a pipedream, I know. Criterion don’t release their DVDs in R2, I imagine. Does anybody know where the best place to get the R1 DVDs in England for respectable prices? Website links appreciated.
I bought “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” when I was sixteen. I can’t remember why. Already, I enjoyed film like any regular sixteen-year-old. But suddenly, watching that movie, I realised something I had never noticed before – that there weren’t any rules to film. No set guidelines. It could be touching or stylistic or surreal or all three. From there, I understood that film was an art, that “people” had crafted and shaped and created everything you see in the frame. Hooked ever since.
Where’s the reasoning that Tarantino has to use his “talent” to make films of such high art? He is a lover of cinema of all kinds – and he makes the films he would like to see on subjects his is knowledgeable about. To say he is untalented is one of the most idiotic things anybody who even has half a good taste and knowledge of cinema could say. It’s obviously not true. Tarantino makes films in his own genre. They’re unique and nobody makes movies in that particular way. Why would we ask for anything else? I think the commerical connotations that go with liking Tarantino and his work put people off – it’s become “trendy” to hate on him. A lot of people on this site want to appear profound and deep, and it’s unfashionable in their opinion to admire Tarantino.
OK. So maybe his style isn’t suited to everybody. But to say he’s untalented is utterly pathetic. I am a fan of all kinds of movies – I like Bergman and Ozu as much as I like Jack Hill and John Carpenter movies. As for Tarantino, he is one of my favourite filmmakers. His imagination is vast, just like his talent.
The cinema doesn’t just have to be about “serious” movies. It’s OK to play with convention and homage.
The auteur definition I’m familar with emphasizes that directors (who might be considered as such) carry themes through their films that make them identifiable. Fincher falls into this bracket – whether he wrote the scripts for his features or not, it doesn’t matter. Scorsese doesn’t write his own material. He is considered an auteur by majority because his style is recognizable and he often tackles similar themes.
So many directors never manage to “stand-out” when they make films, whereas others clearly heap themselves upon the production and you feel their personalities in the frame. When you watch something and you say to yourself, “This feels like a Fincher film”, or “a Scorsese movie,” then the director has obviously done their part in achieving “auteur” status. You recognise the way their moves make you feel – and that can only happen if the director has directed films with themes and tones that are similar. You start to expect it when you see their further works.
I feel it’s crucial that you “feel” the presence of the director in the film. That’s auteur.
Then, again, at the other end of it, isn’t “auteur” so terribly obvious a term? It’s almost certain that the film will reflect the style of whoever directs it. It’s going to happen anyway. I think we use auteur to define those directors who are more established in the tone of their own films. We leave out those directors who seem to have just put the page onto the screen in the most “normal” and “obvious” way.
Once Upon A Time In The West. When Frank (Henry Fonda) shoots the little kid at the beginning, as he fires the train whistle roars out and we cut in a blur to it arriving at the station. The whole image is overwhelming and powerful.
As much as I love Haneke movies, I dread watching them too — and it’s because I know I’m going to be manipulated and I’m going to realise it, too. It’s always uncomfortable. That’s the genius, I guess.
I watched Cannibal Holocaust once and it never left me. Granted, I was fifteen, but I haven’t watched it since because I kind of liked the power it had over me — I don’t want to risk losing that utter disgust.
I’ve decided to write my dissertation on Woody Allen and auteur theory. I just can’t seem to find a logical title to link these huge topics together. Any ideas, gang?
Thanks for the help so far. This is an undergrad dissertation.
Actually, Matt, it’s supposed to serve as an investigation — so as much as Allen does have auteur written all over him, I do need that contrasting opinion to keep it more objective than subjective. For example, his Bergman and Fellini influences argue that he is influenced by other auteurs e.t.c.
I’ll be looking at a number of his select films as case studies and the history of auteur. I’m just trying to name and title my dissertation — when I do so, I believe the “focus” will fall into place and I can form a more cohesive structure.
Imagine recieving an invitation to a tea-party and hearing that the other guests are going to be Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen and hey, why not, the ghost of Walt Disney. On the way there you’d find yourself deep in thought – what we will we talk about? How will everybody get along? What stories will they have to tell? You’d be nervous, of course, amongst these artists, but not at any point would you worry that things might turn sour. No, there are too many great talents, intellectuals, visionaries attending for something like that to happen. No, the conversation will be memorable and magical, full of wit and insight and perhaps even a dab of genius. You will be the envy of your friends, for sure.
You arrive at the party to find the tone is a little odd. Nobody is getting along like you imagined. You sit down and observe the table of guests before you. Johnny Depp is in a strange mood. He’s mumbling in and out of a Scottish accent, winding up the other guests, annoying the Brits with his outright zaniness. Helena Bonham-Carter is trying her best to get some kind of conversation going, but it’s just not happening. She stares down miserably into her cup of tea. Stephen Fry is shaking his head. Crispin Glover is drunk and telling edgy jokes. Michael Sheen and Alan Rickman are staring at a couple of paychecks, their expressions blank and cold. Anne Hathaway is on the phone to her agent, muttering that she has been “ill-used”. The ghost of Walt Disney sits at the head of the table, laughing a terrible laugh that shrounds the whole scene in an oblique darkness.
Wait. Somebody is missing. Where’s Tim? Where the heck is Tim Burton? Surely he can make things better. Yes, he’s just what the party needs. The director – the man with the power to unite these magnificent guests and turn this thing around. You stumble away from the table, eager to find him, following a heavily CGI-generated pathway until you come to a little house on the edge of a wood. From inside, you hear horrible grunting noises. Horrible grunting noises, yes, and sobs… quiet, subdued sobs. Slowly, you edge towards the house and stop at the door. The sounds continue. Grunt. Grunt. Sob. Sob. With one hand, you push the door and peer inside.
You widen your eyes in horror as Tim Burton stares back at you, his trousers down at his ankles. Lewis Carroll is bent over a table, tears welling up beneath his eyes. Something in your heart breaks. Your childhood, perhaps, and you try and wake yourself up from this terrible nightmare. But you can’t. You’re not dreaming.
Spielberg is a master of his field. He knows it, and he knows you know it, too. Anybody who denies his status as an excellent filmmaker is surely blind, whether they like his films or not. He crafts 1st class entertainment. He has proved himself in almost every genre. Most of his films show high amounts of innovation and genius (or at least touches of it in his lesser films).
I dislike this whole “true cinephile” thing. It’s annoying and pretentious and makes no sense in the slightest.
Spielberg is a master of his field. He knows it, and he knows you know it, too. Anybody who denies his status as an excellent filmmaker is surely blind, whether or not they like his films or not. He crafts 1st class entertainment. Most of his films show hight amounts of innovation and genius (or at least touches of in his lesser films).
I dislike this whole “true cinephile” thing. It’s so pretentious and makes no sense at all.
CRITERION UK? over 2 years ago
It’s a pipedream, I know. Criterion don’t release their DVDs in R2, I imagine. Does anybody know where the best place to get the R1 DVDs in England for respectable prices? Website links appreciated.
Go to Comment
CRITERION UK? over 2 years ago
Thanks a bunch.
Go to Comment
A completely ridiculous hypothetical question regarding your favorite filmmakers over 2 years ago
B. Uwe Boll.
Go to Comment
What is the greatest film title ever? over 2 years ago
“Twelve Angry Men.”
Perfect.
Go to Comment
(Temporary) Film database submission mechanism over 2 years ago
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
STEVEN SPIELBERG
USA
1984
118 min
Color
English
Go to Comment
One film you love and will love for the rest of your life? just one film, no cheating, treat it like a marriage! over 2 years ago
Lost In Translation.
Go to Comment
At what age or what stage of your life have you really started getting into film? over 2 years ago
I bought “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” when I was sixteen. I can’t remember why. Already, I enjoyed film like any regular sixteen-year-old. But suddenly, watching that movie, I realised something I had never noticed before – that there weren’t any rules to film. No set guidelines. It could be touching or stylistic or surreal or all three. From there, I understood that film was an art, that “people” had crafted and shaped and created everything you see in the frame. Hooked ever since.
Go to Comment
At what age or what stage of your life have you really started getting into film? over 2 years ago
Oh, and I’m twenty-one now.
Go to Comment
let me just get things straight-what's the general consensus regarding Tarantino on this board over 2 years ago
Where’s the reasoning that Tarantino has to use his “talent” to make films of such high art? He is a lover of cinema of all kinds – and he makes the films he would like to see on subjects his is knowledgeable about. To say he is untalented is one of the most idiotic things anybody who even has half a good taste and knowledge of cinema could say. It’s obviously not true. Tarantino makes films in his own genre. They’re unique and nobody makes movies in that particular way. Why would we ask for anything else? I think the commerical connotations that go with liking Tarantino and his work put people off – it’s become “trendy” to hate on him. A lot of people on this site want to appear profound and deep, and it’s unfashionable in their opinion to admire Tarantino.
OK. So maybe his style isn’t suited to everybody. But to say he’s untalented is utterly pathetic. I am a fan of all kinds of movies – I like Bergman and Ozu as much as I like Jack Hill and John Carpenter movies. As for Tarantino, he is one of my favourite filmmakers. His imagination is vast, just like his talent.
The cinema doesn’t just have to be about “serious” movies. It’s OK to play with convention and homage.
Go to Comment
Does anyone dispute the Auteur Theory any more? over 2 years ago
The auteur definition I’m familar with emphasizes that directors (who might be considered as such) carry themes through their films that make them identifiable. Fincher falls into this bracket – whether he wrote the scripts for his features or not, it doesn’t matter. Scorsese doesn’t write his own material. He is considered an auteur by majority because his style is recognizable and he often tackles similar themes.
So many directors never manage to “stand-out” when they make films, whereas others clearly heap themselves upon the production and you feel their personalities in the frame. When you watch something and you say to yourself, “This feels like a Fincher film”, or “a Scorsese movie,” then the director has obviously done their part in achieving “auteur” status. You recognise the way their moves make you feel – and that can only happen if the director has directed films with themes and tones that are similar. You start to expect it when you see their further works.
I feel it’s crucial that you “feel” the presence of the director in the film. That’s auteur.
Then, again, at the other end of it, isn’t “auteur” so terribly obvious a term? It’s almost certain that the film will reflect the style of whoever directs it. It’s going to happen anyway. I think we use auteur to define those directors who are more established in the tone of their own films. We leave out those directors who seem to have just put the page onto the screen in the most “normal” and “obvious” way.
Go to Comment
Greatest Single Cut over 2 years ago
Once Upon A Time In The West. When Frank (Henry Fonda) shoots the little kid at the beginning, as he fires the train whistle roars out and we cut in a blur to it arriving at the station. The whole image is overwhelming and powerful.
Go to Comment
I will watch anything that has ___ over 2 years ago
Neurotic writers.
Journeys that lead to the heart of darkness.
Go to Comment
what qualifies a film as being manipulative over 2 years ago
As much as I love Haneke movies, I dread watching them too — and it’s because I know I’m going to be manipulated and I’m going to realise it, too. It’s always uncomfortable. That’s the genius, I guess.
Go to Comment
Cannibal Holocoust over 2 years ago
I watched Cannibal Holocaust once and it never left me. Granted, I was fifteen, but I haven’t watched it since because I kind of liked the power it had over me — I don’t want to risk losing that utter disgust.
Go to Comment
The problem with Leo and Scorsese over 2 years ago
Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favourite actors of modern times.
Go to Comment
what if inglourious basterds wins the best picture? over 2 years ago
@ [Drew]
Sorry, Drew, but your theories on what Inglourious Basterds is about is utter Bruce Campbell.
The violence is as joke-orientated as it ever has been in a QT film.
Go to Comment
what if inglourious basterds wins the best picture? over 2 years ago
On this occasion, I’m going on what Tarantino has said.
Go to Comment
DISSERTATION FRUSTRATION over 2 years ago
I’ve decided to write my dissertation on Woody Allen and auteur theory. I just can’t seem to find a logical title to link these huge topics together. Any ideas, gang?
Go to Comment
DISSERTATION FRUSTRATION about 2 years ago
Thanks for the help so far. This is an undergrad dissertation.
Actually, Matt, it’s supposed to serve as an investigation — so as much as Allen does have auteur written all over him, I do need that contrasting opinion to keep it more objective than subjective. For example, his Bergman and Fellini influences argue that he is influenced by other auteurs e.t.c.
I’ll be looking at a number of his select films as case studies and the history of auteur. I’m just trying to name and title my dissertation — when I do so, I believe the “focus” will fall into place and I can form a more cohesive structure.
Go to Comment
Alice in Underwhelmingland about 2 years ago
Imagine recieving an invitation to a tea-party and hearing that the other guests are going to be Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, Helena Bonham-Carter, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen and hey, why not, the ghost of Walt Disney. On the way there you’d find yourself deep in thought – what we will we talk about? How will everybody get along? What stories will they have to tell? You’d be nervous, of course, amongst these artists, but not at any point would you worry that things might turn sour. No, there are too many great talents, intellectuals, visionaries attending for something like that to happen. No, the conversation will be memorable and magical, full of wit and insight and perhaps even a dab of genius. You will be the envy of your friends, for sure.
You arrive at the party to find the tone is a little odd. Nobody is getting along like you imagined. You sit down and observe the table of guests before you. Johnny Depp is in a strange mood. He’s mumbling in and out of a Scottish accent, winding up the other guests, annoying the Brits with his outright zaniness. Helena Bonham-Carter is trying her best to get some kind of conversation going, but it’s just not happening. She stares down miserably into her cup of tea. Stephen Fry is shaking his head. Crispin Glover is drunk and telling edgy jokes. Michael Sheen and Alan Rickman are staring at a couple of paychecks, their expressions blank and cold. Anne Hathaway is on the phone to her agent, muttering that she has been “ill-used”. The ghost of Walt Disney sits at the head of the table, laughing a terrible laugh that shrounds the whole scene in an oblique darkness.
Wait. Somebody is missing. Where’s Tim? Where the heck is Tim Burton? Surely he can make things better. Yes, he’s just what the party needs. The director – the man with the power to unite these magnificent guests and turn this thing around. You stumble away from the table, eager to find him, following a heavily CGI-generated pathway until you come to a little house on the edge of a wood. From inside, you hear horrible grunting noises. Horrible grunting noises, yes, and sobs… quiet, subdued sobs. Slowly, you edge towards the house and stop at the door. The sounds continue. Grunt. Grunt. Sob. Sob. With one hand, you push the door and peer inside.
You widen your eyes in horror as Tim Burton stares back at you, his trousers down at his ankles. Lewis Carroll is bent over a table, tears welling up beneath his eyes. Something in your heart breaks. Your childhood, perhaps, and you try and wake yourself up from this terrible nightmare. But you can’t. You’re not dreaming.
It’s real.
Go to Comment
are there any spielberg films true cinephiles admire... about 2 years ago
Spielberg is a master of his field. He knows it, and he knows you know it, too. Anybody who denies his status as an excellent filmmaker is surely blind, whether they like his films or not. He crafts 1st class entertainment. He has proved himself in almost every genre. Most of his films show high amounts of innovation and genius (or at least touches of it in his lesser films).
I dislike this whole “true cinephile” thing. It’s annoying and pretentious and makes no sense in the slightest.
Go to Comment
are there any spielberg films true cinephiles admire... about 2 years ago
Spielberg is a master of his field. He knows it, and he knows you know it, too. Anybody who denies his status as an excellent filmmaker is surely blind, whether or not they like his films or not. He crafts 1st class entertainment. Most of his films show hight amounts of innovation and genius (or at least touches of in his lesser films).
I dislike this whole “true cinephile” thing. It’s so pretentious and makes no sense at all.
Go to Comment