is the bow tie reference aimed at anyone in particular? or put another way, why you gotta start talking smack about RC. I know criterion already dissed him with the whole Gena Rowlands fiasco, but that was one of their all time biggest mistakes. furthermore, his contributions to film are beyond vital and deserve to be a part of this “community”. if the bow tie dig wasn’t directed at RC, then disregard everything i just said and carry on about your business.
congrats. you “won”, but you ignored the second part of the question: why is he on there, while the arguably more valid Dardenne brothers are not? and not to open up a bigger can of worms, but are movies made by corporate board room consensus really worthy of being considered “auteur” work? I’d like to argue that Ratner is just a cog in a machine and doesn’t merit the title of “auteur”. Not to exclude him from being watched or discussed, but i don’t believe he deserves serious consideration with filmmakers who write their own material and manage to get their own ideas up on the screen, sans the meddling of multi-national money grubbing suits.
there’s a recent japanese film called “fine, totally fine” that is brilliant. not available in the states yet, but out on dvd in japan. other directors that deserve mention are chang dong lee, katsuhito ishii, and joon-hwan jang,
none of this discussion is meant to be elitist. (hell, one of my favorite movies is texas chainsaw massacre). the point of the original question was to discuss why certain questionable people are on the “favorite auteur list” while others who probably deserve to be there are not. furthermore, and this is going to sound incredibly elitist, but fuck it, it needs to be asked: for the sake of argument, if there was a site called “gourmet cuisine”, would it be elitist to question why Mickey Ds was included on a “your favorite restaurants” list to the exclusion of some really great little hole in the wall culinary gems?
As I’ll state again, this wasn’t to exclude anyone from being discussed. Everyone involved in the process of filmmaking should be worthy of discussion and scrutiny. so again, to be 100% clear, on that point I agree with Dan. But the thing i was really trying to get at with this thread (and i now realize i perhaps needed to be a bit clearer) was: “what is the criterion for determining who is and who isn’t an auteur on this relatively new site—a burgeoning virtual community?” is it a free for all where ‘auteur’ refers to anyone and everyone who’s made more than two films? anyone who’s made money? or had a degree of critical acclaim? regardless of their relation to the means of production? if that is the case, then how will this site be any different from flixster or countless other mainstream film fan sites? or should it be a place where we encourage each other to think critically about challenging and enlightening work, not at the exclusion of the mindless “fun” stuff, but at least acknowledging the difference between the different streams? or will it just be an anything and everything goes fanboy fangirl fest where even the biggest piece of crap Beverly Hills Chihuahua film receives the same attention as Abdel Kechiche’s latest film? Beverly Hills Chihuahua defenders enter stage right? if it is merely a case of a more thorough list being created over time, cool. i hope that’s the case. but the problem with all canons is that someone who may not know anything can sometimes be the one calling the shots. and the only way to remedy this situation it to first bring it up as an issue, then discuss, argue, explain varying points of view, etc. without this type of back and forth, it’s radical relativism where nothing matters because everything can mean anything. did i just say radical relativism, uh oh, wake up the “elitist-police”.
and Kevin, don’t sell yourself short. forget MIGHT, i’m convinced you could make a more interesting film than Ratner using nothing more than the camera connected to your laptop, so long as it’s honest and comes from the heart. Attempting something of that order would likely make Ratner’s head explode, in that it would be too drastic of a paradigm shift for his MO to handle.
It’s well documented that Rotten absolutely despises it, for a number of reasons. he does however acknowledge GO’s solid performance. but it’s a fiction, and watched next to the documentary “the filth and the fury”, s&n seems like a silly cartoon that caricaturizes some quite extraordinary people.
‘no irish no blacks no dogs’ is worth reading too, if you want to bring books into it. for all the critiques of rotten that float around, you have to at least give him credit for putting in other people’s conflicting views and accounts in his own autobiography.
but the question was, ‘why is he on the list at the exclusion of melville or the dardennes (for just two examples)?? it was more a query into how this site/community is defining itself and what it really considers the criterion on which it maps out its identity. is it no different from imdb boards, or flixster or other all-inclusive free for all sites, or is it something dedicated to a different type of film community? Ratner being on the limited list or directors, while others are not, i believe is worthy of discussion. for arguments sake, if we don’t discuss these things than who is to say this place is any different from all the other crap sites out there?? of course Ratner’s ranking is in our hands, but being able to include some obvious others in the “canon” is currently not. you get what i’m saying?
i’m not so sure the early advocates of auteur theory at Cahiers du cinéma meant it just simply as a descriptive. i was always under the impression that the “young turks” intended it to mean films that have a definite signature based on the style and concerns of a contextualized, firmly locatable artist. i would personally argue that people like ratner are a symptom of the machine model, interchangeable hacks that deliver a product that’s constructed by focus groups and testing, formulas and routine. he’s part of a money making apparatus that hijacks the idea of art under the guise of “entertainement”.
what we, right here and right now, are willing to accept as “art” will determine what happens 50 years from now. it’s not just magic. we decide the canons of tomorrow and if we don’t passionately stake claims as to what is good and crap then it’s a relativist free for all, isn’t it? is that what we want? a world where Godard is no more or less important than McG, because, y’know, my tasteless Uncle Philbert who only sees one movie a year, thinks that McG is a McGenius, and surely his opinion is just as important as those of ours who spend a huge chunk of our lives living and breathing cinema?
is it worth taking serious, this medium that informs us of who we are and how we make sense of our lives? or is it just another distraction that doesn’t need to be taken so seriously?
i think it’s pretty important, but i could be wrong.
im embarrassed that i’m being read as impassioned, so touche. i know my tone is probably coming off as such, but that’s unintentional and i really just want to clarify why i started this stream in the first place—that being that if we don’t discuss these topics, of who’s included and who is overlooked, than we just have another imdb, or flixster, and there will still be a void when it comes to a place where people can discuss this medium more seriously. to give some context, i can’t stand popularity contests and high school nonsense. i think that film is a peculiar thing in that because we can all watch film, we all feel entitled to having opinions about film, but that runs the risk of lowest common denominator silliness (de tocqueville anyone?). so what do we do about this predicament. how do we keep our conversations from being reduced to nothing more than say a vote for prom king or homecoming queen. i think it’s important to talk about why we think welles or hitchcock were crap, or great, based on more than “but i like it” (i find myself more in the first camp—but you’d think i was nuts if i didn’t explain, hence my point about the importance of all this taking it seriously stuff. why i hold this opinion? i’ll gladly indulge you at a later time. want to stay on topic). but look, if we don’t talk about this stuff i guarantee that the market forces will make sure ratner is canonized, remembered, whatever, just as the dardennes WILL drift into obscurity. to money grubbers, pigs, whatever you want to call businesspeople, that’s good business. and that’s my fear. that the “bottom line” will infect what is left of our more critical and nuanced eyes, ears and hearts. cancerous relativity or just plain old knee jerk “taste” for junkfood and rollercoaster rides could very easily turn this medium into a joke. look what’s happened to music. so yeah, i agree with lots of what you’re saying up above (save the “great” hitchcock hyperbole, for example) but i’d still argue that it’s important to point out the problem with Ratner being on a list with the heading of “favorite auteurs” while others are left out. call me alarmist (even impassioned), but it raises huge issues, if you really care about cinema.
A HOLE IN MY HEART, Moodysson. Precursor to Antichrist antics. i actually was on a date watching this film and to make matters worse, we had sneaked in burritos to eat during the film. i finished mine without a problem and effectively also finished any chances of romance as well. if you’ve had the pleasure of seeing this film you’ll know what i’m talking about.
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
…while the dardenne brothers are not!? who else is missing that deserves to be added, and who should get the boot? commence with the war of the words.
Go to Comment
New to The Auteurs? You Belong Here over 3 years ago
is the bow tie reference aimed at anyone in particular? or put another way, why you gotta start talking smack about RC. I know criterion already dissed him with the whole Gena Rowlands fiasco, but that was one of their all time biggest mistakes. furthermore, his contributions to film are beyond vital and deserve to be a part of this “community”. if the bow tie dig wasn’t directed at RC, then disregard everything i just said and carry on about your business.
Go to Comment
Who do you read? over 3 years ago
some people who haven’t been mentioned yet (i don’t think)
paul beatty
joyce carol oates
russell banks
zadie smith
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
congrats. you “won”, but you ignored the second part of the question: why is he on there, while the arguably more valid Dardenne brothers are not? and not to open up a bigger can of worms, but are movies made by corporate board room consensus really worthy of being considered “auteur” work? I’d like to argue that Ratner is just a cog in a machine and doesn’t merit the title of “auteur”. Not to exclude him from being watched or discussed, but i don’t believe he deserves serious consideration with filmmakers who write their own material and manage to get their own ideas up on the screen, sans the meddling of multi-national money grubbing suits.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
see what i’m talking about. or did the intended meaning of “auteur” get lost in translation from what Truffaut and gang were originally getting at?
Go to Comment
Best of Recent Asian Cinema over 3 years ago
there’s a recent japanese film called “fine, totally fine” that is brilliant. not available in the states yet, but out on dvd in japan. other directors that deserve mention are chang dong lee, katsuhito ishii, and joon-hwan jang,
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
none of this discussion is meant to be elitist. (hell, one of my favorite movies is texas chainsaw massacre). the point of the original question was to discuss why certain questionable people are on the “favorite auteur list” while others who probably deserve to be there are not. furthermore, and this is going to sound incredibly elitist, but fuck it, it needs to be asked: for the sake of argument, if there was a site called “gourmet cuisine”, would it be elitist to question why Mickey Ds was included on a “your favorite restaurants” list to the exclusion of some really great little hole in the wall culinary gems?
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
As I’ll state again, this wasn’t to exclude anyone from being discussed. Everyone involved in the process of filmmaking should be worthy of discussion and scrutiny. so again, to be 100% clear, on that point I agree with Dan. But the thing i was really trying to get at with this thread (and i now realize i perhaps needed to be a bit clearer) was: “what is the criterion for determining who is and who isn’t an auteur on this relatively new site—a burgeoning virtual community?” is it a free for all where ‘auteur’ refers to anyone and everyone who’s made more than two films? anyone who’s made money? or had a degree of critical acclaim? regardless of their relation to the means of production? if that is the case, then how will this site be any different from flixster or countless other mainstream film fan sites? or should it be a place where we encourage each other to think critically about challenging and enlightening work, not at the exclusion of the mindless “fun” stuff, but at least acknowledging the difference between the different streams? or will it just be an anything and everything goes fanboy fangirl fest where even the biggest piece of crap Beverly Hills Chihuahua film receives the same attention as Abdel Kechiche’s latest film? Beverly Hills Chihuahua defenders enter stage right? if it is merely a case of a more thorough list being created over time, cool. i hope that’s the case. but the problem with all canons is that someone who may not know anything can sometimes be the one calling the shots. and the only way to remedy this situation it to first bring it up as an issue, then discuss, argue, explain varying points of view, etc. without this type of back and forth, it’s radical relativism where nothing matters because everything can mean anything. did i just say radical relativism, uh oh, wake up the “elitist-police”.
and Kevin, don’t sell yourself short. forget MIGHT, i’m convinced you could make a more interesting film than Ratner using nothing more than the camera connected to your laptop, so long as it’s honest and comes from the heart. Attempting something of that order would likely make Ratner’s head explode, in that it would be too drastic of a paradigm shift for his MO to handle.
Go to Comment
Age / Level of education? (An informal poll) over 3 years ago
Born the same year as Puffy. In the timeless words of Frank Zappa, “I got a high school diploma.”
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
Go to Comment
What do Sex Pistols fans think of this? over 3 years ago
It’s well documented that Rotten absolutely despises it, for a number of reasons. he does however acknowledge GO’s solid performance. but it’s a fiction, and watched next to the documentary “the filth and the fury”, s&n seems like a silly cartoon that caricaturizes some quite extraordinary people.
Go to Comment
What do Sex Pistols fans think of this? over 3 years ago
‘no irish no blacks no dogs’ is worth reading too, if you want to bring books into it. for all the critiques of rotten that float around, you have to at least give him credit for putting in other people’s conflicting views and accounts in his own autobiography.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
but the question was, ‘why is he on the list at the exclusion of melville or the dardennes (for just two examples)?? it was more a query into how this site/community is defining itself and what it really considers the criterion on which it maps out its identity. is it no different from imdb boards, or flixster or other all-inclusive free for all sites, or is it something dedicated to a different type of film community? Ratner being on the limited list or directors, while others are not, i believe is worthy of discussion. for arguments sake, if we don’t discuss these things than who is to say this place is any different from all the other crap sites out there?? of course Ratner’s ranking is in our hands, but being able to include some obvious others in the “canon” is currently not. you get what i’m saying?
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
i’m not so sure the early advocates of auteur theory at Cahiers du cinéma meant it just simply as a descriptive. i was always under the impression that the “young turks” intended it to mean films that have a definite signature based on the style and concerns of a contextualized, firmly locatable artist. i would personally argue that people like ratner are a symptom of the machine model, interchangeable hacks that deliver a product that’s constructed by focus groups and testing, formulas and routine. he’s part of a money making apparatus that hijacks the idea of art under the guise of “entertainement”.
what we, right here and right now, are willing to accept as “art” will determine what happens 50 years from now. it’s not just magic. we decide the canons of tomorrow and if we don’t passionately stake claims as to what is good and crap then it’s a relativist free for all, isn’t it? is that what we want? a world where Godard is no more or less important than McG, because, y’know, my tasteless Uncle Philbert who only sees one movie a year, thinks that McG is a McGenius, and surely his opinion is just as important as those of ours who spend a huge chunk of our lives living and breathing cinema?
is it worth taking serious, this medium that informs us of who we are and how we make sense of our lives? or is it just another distraction that doesn’t need to be taken so seriously?
i think it’s pretty important, but i could be wrong.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
im embarrassed that i’m being read as impassioned, so touche. i know my tone is probably coming off as such, but that’s unintentional and i really just want to clarify why i started this stream in the first place—that being that if we don’t discuss these topics, of who’s included and who is overlooked, than we just have another imdb, or flixster, and there will still be a void when it comes to a place where people can discuss this medium more seriously. to give some context, i can’t stand popularity contests and high school nonsense. i think that film is a peculiar thing in that because we can all watch film, we all feel entitled to having opinions about film, but that runs the risk of lowest common denominator silliness (de tocqueville anyone?). so what do we do about this predicament. how do we keep our conversations from being reduced to nothing more than say a vote for prom king or homecoming queen. i think it’s important to talk about why we think welles or hitchcock were crap, or great, based on more than “but i like it” (i find myself more in the first camp—but you’d think i was nuts if i didn’t explain, hence my point about the importance of all this taking it seriously stuff. why i hold this opinion? i’ll gladly indulge you at a later time. want to stay on topic). but look, if we don’t talk about this stuff i guarantee that the market forces will make sure ratner is canonized, remembered, whatever, just as the dardennes WILL drift into obscurity. to money grubbers, pigs, whatever you want to call businesspeople, that’s good business. and that’s my fear. that the “bottom line” will infect what is left of our more critical and nuanced eyes, ears and hearts. cancerous relativity or just plain old knee jerk “taste” for junkfood and rollercoaster rides could very easily turn this medium into a joke. look what’s happened to music. so yeah, i agree with lots of what you’re saying up above (save the “great” hitchcock hyperbole, for example) but i’d still argue that it’s important to point out the problem with Ratner being on a list with the heading of “favorite auteurs” while others are left out. call me alarmist (even impassioned), but it raises huge issues, if you really care about cinema.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
oh shit. film geeks on a website called the auteurs? call the cops.
Go to Comment
can someone explain why brett ratner is in the auteur profile list?? over 3 years ago
cool. you win. i’ll just keep my self-congratulatory references limited to people like hannity and ben lyons.
Go to Comment
Worst movie to watch on a first date over 2 years ago
A HOLE IN MY HEART, Moodysson. Precursor to Antichrist antics. i actually was on a date watching this film and to make matters worse, we had sneaked in burritos to eat during the film. i finished mine without a problem and effectively also finished any chances of romance as well. if you’ve had the pleasure of seeing this film you’ll know what i’m talking about.
Go to Comment