Ebert does have a good point: these people shouldn’t be considered as friends — in an ideal world. But what can be done when there are no geniune lovers of film in your area? Just make do with what you got.
I had a friend (no longer! but we parted ways for another reason) who said that he didn’t want to watch Pi at that particular moment, even though he had said that he wanted give something new a chance, because he didn’t “feel” like watching a black and white film. “Maybe another time, just not right now.” You don’t want to watch a black and white film because you don’t “feel” like it? Really? That, umm, doesn’t make any sense to me.
I can remember from one of Ebert’s reviews where he himself admits to being guilty of putting too much (or even the sole) credit for the final product of the film to the director and not enough to the other individuals involved in the collaborative process. I wish I could see more distinction in print or online for the cinematographers, editors, etc. But it is understandable how, in a review with a limited amout of space, critics would cite only the director or maybe even the composer of the score and just leave it at that. Heck, before the Oscars earlier this year I was on their website and only the names for the actors are listed for the nominations and the rest of the categories are listed by the name of the movie and nothing else. What’s the deal with that? I know a lot the “average” movie-goers only care about the actors, but they can’t even be bothered to list the names of the other nominees?
Terrence Malick is a good example of a director who doesn’t follow in line with autuer theory but through collaboration with a lot of input from all individuals involved in the process of making the film, create distinctly unique films for a mainstream audience. Of course, many would probably call Malick an autuer, but he would most likely disagree with that assessment.
Oh, this is easy: Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch. A film that is a blur of biography and fiction mixed together in a way to concoct a wonderfully druggy brew. Include in that the filmmaker’s conjectures on the life of the author and the life of his fiction as well. It’s like creating a strange mythos from pieces of this-and-that.
Ebert was figuratively on both knees in front of a very pleased James Cameron with his review for Avatar. Wipe off that mouth of yours, Ebert! It’s unbecoming of you. I don’t know about anyone else, but I threw up a little bit onto myself when I read it.
The Anti-Black & White Film Brigade about 3 years ago
Ebert does have a good point: these people shouldn’t be considered as friends — in an ideal world. But what can be done when there are no geniune lovers of film in your area? Just make do with what you got.
I had a friend (no longer! but we parted ways for another reason) who said that he didn’t want to watch Pi at that particular moment, even though he had said that he wanted give something new a chance, because he didn’t “feel” like watching a black and white film. “Maybe another time, just not right now.” You don’t want to watch a black and white film because you don’t “feel” like it? Really? That, umm, doesn’t make any sense to me.
Go to Comment
GREAT SITE, BUT AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO'S NOT A BIG FAN OF AUTEUR THEORY about 3 years ago
I can remember from one of Ebert’s reviews where he himself admits to being guilty of putting too much (or even the sole) credit for the final product of the film to the director and not enough to the other individuals involved in the collaborative process. I wish I could see more distinction in print or online for the cinematographers, editors, etc. But it is understandable how, in a review with a limited amout of space, critics would cite only the director or maybe even the composer of the score and just leave it at that. Heck, before the Oscars earlier this year I was on their website and only the names for the actors are listed for the nominations and the rest of the categories are listed by the name of the movie and nothing else. What’s the deal with that? I know a lot the “average” movie-goers only care about the actors, but they can’t even be bothered to list the names of the other nominees?
Terrence Malick is a good example of a director who doesn’t follow in line with autuer theory but through collaboration with a lot of input from all individuals involved in the process of making the film, create distinctly unique films for a mainstream audience. Of course, many would probably call Malick an autuer, but he would most likely disagree with that assessment.
Go to Comment
Greatest movie about a writer. over 2 years ago
Oh, this is easy: Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch. A film that is a blur of biography and fiction mixed together in a way to concoct a wonderfully druggy brew. Include in that the filmmaker’s conjectures on the life of the author and the life of his fiction as well. It’s like creating a strange mythos from pieces of this-and-that.
Go to Comment
Avatar over 2 years ago
Ebert was figuratively on both knees in front of a very pleased James Cameron with his review for Avatar. Wipe off that mouth of yours, Ebert! It’s unbecoming of you. I don’t know about anyone else, but I threw up a little bit onto myself when I read it.
Go to Comment