Tarkovsky is probably the only filmmaker of whom it could be said that every film he made was a masterpiece.
Now while I agree that Tarkovsky may have his own “language”, I don’t think it’s something that needs to be looked at with any kind of apprehension. In my opinion, all you have to do is let yourself be immersed in his films, to let your ego boundary collapse. A friend once told me that watching a Tarkovsky film was like watching paint dry. Well, he was right in a way. Except, I’d add that it’s like watching an exquisitely beautiful painting dry. Just think of when you go to a museum and you focus on an abstract painting. If that painting resonates with you, then you will experience that moment of what Werner Herzog calls the “ecstatic truth.” Tarkovsky’s films, at least for me, are more of an emotional and a spiritual experience rather than a rational and an intellectual one. And for this very reason, I tend to disagree with those people who compare Tarkovsky to Kubrick. I can’t think of two filmmakers with more disparate artistic visions.
“Is he on par with a Kubrick, Bergman, Herzog, (insert your favorite here)? Maybe, maybe not.”
Dude, David Fincher is definitely not on par with Kubrick, Bergman, Herzog. And I think you know that too.
It’s not about making a distinction between high and low art. David Fincher makes fairly entertaining films that resonate with a lot of people. And there’s nothing wrong with liking his movies. But there is a reason why this site is called theauteurs.com and not thedirectors.com. Fincher’s films are huge multi-gazillion commercial projects, employing lavish special effects, editing, and so on. Fincher himself doesn’t even know the members of his own so-called production crew. An auteur by definition is someone who has a significant and final say in every aspect of their work. When you are completely entrenched in the Hollywood system, it’s not possible to follow and realize your singular artistic vision.
Look at John Waters for example. He’s not exactly high art, is he? But he’s usually considered an auteur and rightfully so, because he is more or less in complete charge of seeing his own particular artistic vision realized on celluloid.
Sorry, David Fincher doesn’t cut it. And he never will. Well, he shouldn’t anyway.
I’m familiar with a lot of criticisms of Tarkovsky’s work. But “empty” and “soulless” are new ones. Wowie…could you delineate further. Perfumed Dandy?
And by the way, since when is Oliver Sachs an authority on cinema? Isn’t he the man whose greatest contribution to cinema was writing “Awakenings” which was later adapted into a movie starring Robin Williams? Does Dr. Sachs have a word for patients who liked that movie?
Well, the term “auteur” is a wee bit relevant since the site is called THEAUTEURS.COM, lmao. But the simple reality is that the site cannot simply accommodate discussion on every single filmmaker in the world. It has to draw a line somewhere. And yes, that line is a subjective one. And personally I have nothing against David Fincher as I believe that he’s quite adept at what he does. But the whole point of a site like this isn’t to be as inclusive as possible, but to be somewhat exclusive. Yes, some people just want to be snobbish and pretentious and want to display for the world their knowledge of obscure cinema. But frankly, at least speaking for myself and my peers, we just want a forum where we can discuss filmmakers who are not discussed in mainstream media. Do you really have an urgent need to discuss David Fincher at a site like this? There are gazillion other sites where you can extol the merits of “Fight Club” or “Benjamin Button”, so must you bring that to this site? I mean the whole world is a sanctuary if you’re a David Fincher fan, but many of us at this site come here to get away from that.
BOBBY WISE, no one here talked about anyone else’s lack of perception or failure to understand. This was an incredibly civil and polite thread until PERFUMED DANDY came in and then cited Oliver Sachs of all people (who is actually considered by many to be a charlatan in his own field!!!) to volley a not so subtle insult to Tarkovsky fans suggesting that they suffer from “catatonia.” These are his words, not mine. And then, he says Tarkovsky’s works are “empty and soulless.”
I asked him very politely if he could delineate further on his “empty and soulless” comment. Instead of sticking to the subject, now he just goes on to say that Tarkovsky is a “charlatan.” I mean, what the hell…?
I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if someone doesn’t like Tarkovsky’s films. That doesn’t make me like or dislike someone. But at a site like this, people should be mature enough to not just come out of the blue and flame with ad hominem attacks. And as you advised, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY welcome those with differing opinions, but there is no need for infantile belligerence.
And why would you assume that people are bowing down to Tarkovsky a priori anyway? Just because people haven’t taken the time to delineate as to why they appreciate his films doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re bowing down to him a priori. It could very well be that people have very well-formed opinions about why they think Tarkovsky is great. Well, maybe not everyone, but some at least. but wouldn’t the civilized thing be to just ask people to “defend Tarkovsky’s films with solidly-expressed ideas and illuminating concepts” before presuming that they like his films a priori?
It isn’t as if extolling the virtues of Tarkovsky’s films is something that can be done in a brief sentence anyway.
But I’ll quote what Kurosawa had to say about how Tarkovsky filmed something as seemingly simple as a stream.
“Every film by Tarkovsky is marvelous, indeed. He was especially marvelous in handling the Water Element, as seen, for example, in Solaris and Sacrifice. He was somehow able to shoot a pond or water pool as transparent as to allow us to see through to the very bottom. You know, if you do it in an ordinary way, you will for sure find the sky reflected on the water surface. I, too, wanted to shoot water as he did, in making an episode of the Village of Watermills in Dreams. Can you imagine what we did to achieve that? We set up huge cranes soaring to the sky to put up a huge black cloth to prevent the sky reflection on the water surface. Now the riverbed became visible. "
Any of you who have watched either “Andrei Rublev” or “Solaris” or “Sacrifice” knows exactly what Kurosawa is referring to here. Those translucent shots of the stream with the floating weeds…so simple yet unequaled in visual, poetic, and emotional impact than any other in cinema. It captures on celluloid that moment of transcendent beauty, that instantiation of the “ecstatic truth” as Werner fucking Herzog would eloquently put it. Work of a charlatan? I think not.
Bobby Wise, you should be careful before you make a sweeping statement like “none of you know what auteur means.” Umm… dude, I know exactly what it means, which is why David Fincher isn’t an auteur. You are right about one thing, “auteur” doesn’t necessarily denote a certain level or quality. So what does “auteur” mean exactly? It means more than just an “author” by the way. An auteur is someone who not only has a distinct, unique, and personal artistic vision but who also exercises nearly complete creative control and is involved in every aspect of the process. Ed Wood, who some say is the worst filmmaker ever to have lived, is an auteur by this definition. David Fincher is not. Sorry. Auteurship is not about quality, but about the filmmaking process, and the way something like “Benjamin Button” was made doesn’t qualify its nominal author (I say nominal for obvious reasons) to be an auteur. His movie’s marketing and CGI teams have budgets and staff members that dwarf those of other true “auteurs.” You guys actually think that David Fincher had anything resembling complete creative control over “Benjamin Button?” Movies like that are the very antithesis of what auteurship is about.
And again, Bobby Wise, it’s hardly about extolling the virtues of Fellini, Tarkovsky, Bergman, and Godard over and over again. Do you know that one of the very first films theauteurs.com started promoting was “The Housemaid” by Kim Ki-young. Well, I’ve watched 5 other films by this incredible South Korean filmmaker with a singular imaginative oeuvre and the man is mentioned almost nowhere on the internet. That’s what theauteurs.com should really be about. I mean, sure discuss Fincher all you want, no one can stop you. But what is really the point when there are gazillions of other forums to do that. I mean, why not extricate yourself from what is essentially slightly-better-than-standard-mainstream-fare and explore the works of true auteur like Kim Ki-young or Angelopoulos or Bela Tarr?
Umm, Hitchcock had a fraction of the number of people who worked on “Benjamin Button.” Please. Yes, he had a huge production staff by the standards of the day, but it’s tiny compared to the staffs of these mutil-gazillion dollar blockbusters like today. And sure, I don’t know with 100% certainty that Fincher doesn’t know everyone who works on “his” movie. It’s just a reasonable guess since an innumerable number of people gets involved on such movies. Anyway, go ahead, have your discussions about one of the most talked about directors in the world, lol. The poor guy doesn’t get enough attention. Boohoo.
Please read what I said. I never ever claimed anywhere in this thread—or anywhere else for that matter—that Hitchcock had COMPLETE creative control. I said that auteurs by definition exercise “nearly complete creative control”—a subtle yet important difference. As for qualifying as an AUTEUR, Hitchcock would be a far better candidate as his movies were not put together in a piecemeal process involving innumerable number of people. The word AUTEUR is a neologism. It came into being only about 4 decades ago, and it has a very specific meaning. Well, actually let me correct myself. It is a neologism as it pertains specifically to cinema. We all know that it means “author” in French. Anyway, an auteur by definition has extensive control over his creative vision and is intimately involved in nearly every aspect of the film’s production. Big ass Hollywood productions by definition cannot be made by auteurs. This isn’t snobbery. I’m not even saying that Fincher’s films are necessarily bad. But he isn’t an auteur. And obviously the creators of this site agree with me. Maybe they’ll cave into fanboy demands and include Fincher on their director pages. Or maybe the term “auteur” will be redefined to include people like Fincher, and that’s fine and dandy too.
But look at Benjamin Button. Does that film have any hint whatsoever of a singular and unique artistic vision? If you didn’t know that was directed by Fincher, would you have guessed it in your wildest dreams? That schlock of a movie could’ve been directed by Robert Zemeckis or Ron Howard or any other competent middling Hollywood director.
Again, I’m not saying that Fincher isn’t talented. He does have talent. Heck, I really liked “Fight Club.” I thought it really captured the zeitgeist. It beats a lot of films done by even guys like Godard and Oshima. This isn’t about talent or quality. It’s about what it means to be an “auteur.” It’s about the filmmaking process, not about the relative quality of the finished product. John Waters’ films are pretty crude to say the least and tasteless in many people’s opinion. Nevertheless, that dude is undoubtedly an auteur. He fits the definition to a tee.
In the Realm of the Senses and Empire of Passion are two of his least compelling films. Ugh. Poop. Senses has always been and will again be a cash cow for Criterion. Criterion needs to stop putting out the same old shit and start living up to their supposed aim of putting out cinematic art. Right now, they’re just releasing whatever will make them money. I guess they are a business after all, but what really is the point of putting out well-known but mediocre works by directors who have done far more interesting and worthwhile stuff? Death by Hanging is just about Oshima’s least well-known film, at least outside of Japan, but it is also just about his finest film. Shape the fuck up, Criterion.
Jason, let me preface my reply by saying that you don’t have to worry about coming across as belligerent. I can sense that you’re interested in genuine dialogue, and that is always welcome by me.
And Matt, why provide a definition of how the word is understood and used today and then discard it all together? Words do evolve over the years, and the dictionary definition you provided is how the term is generally used, and not just in popular culture.
To be absolutely honest with you guys, I wasn’t consulting Sarris or Bazin or back issues of Cahiers du Cinema or the dictionary while I was participating in this thread. The definition I was using was one formulated in my brain after years of reading about film (and of course, naturally and necessarily about auteur theory) and watching them. Like Jason pointed out, there has been shit loads of discourse on the concept ever since the term was coined. I do find it rather uncanny though that the definition I have been using is pretty damn close to the one in dictionaries. And no, this isn’t due to any brilliance on my part, but just a natural result of countless hours I’ve devoted to my love for cinema. And when you really read all of what Sarris had to say in his original treatise, it is definitely true to the spirit of what he was saying. The original question raised by this thread was why Fincher was ostensibly not considered an “auteur” by a site that calls itself “theauteurs.com” News flash. Maybe because he isn’t one by the generally accepted definition of the day? LOL. Or maybe this is a pop culture site and they clearly misunderstand the term.
I mean, sure, we can do a literal deconstruction of the letter of Sarris’ words from 4.5 decades ago. I happen to like Sarris and his writing a lot. But trust me, when I say this. Sarris has nothing but contempt for contemporary mainstream films. http://wiredforbooks.org/andrewsarris/ I don’t think you’re going to find much love for Fincher’s films in Sarris’ writing. This is a link to a good interview with Sarris in 2000. It’s over an hour long, so don’t say I didn’t warn you. But in it, he specifically refers to contemporary mainstream studio films as “totally soulless.” And he’s a pretty affable guy, but you will hear the utter disgust in his voice as he says that. His favorite film of all time is “Earring of Madam de…” by Ophuls. I have his all-time top 10 list lying around somewhere and I can tell you with assurance that there was nothing in it from the past 40 years. Yup. No lie. It could actually be that there was nothing on that list since he wrote his notes on auteur theory.
“I’m sorry Blue Kim, but your definition of auteur is making less and less sense and seems a way for you to justify your own personal taste in small, lesser known films.”
Well, Jason, ultimately, I couldn’t care less as to whether or not someone is considered an auteur. My stance all along has been that the term “auteur” shouldn’t really be a value judgment and that Fincher fans do not need to be disheartened by his exclusion from the site. And that might sound paradoxical coming from someone who is clearly not a huge fan of Fincher, but it is what it is. In my humble opinion—and I’m sure many disagree, and with justifiable reasons for doing so—there are auteurs who make generally poor films and non-auteurs who make generally good films. I happen to think of Fincher as a non-auteur but a technically sound director who occasionally rises over the heap of trash that Hollywood recycles.
But as for “Benjamin Button”…sigh. I cannot see for the life of me how there’s any distinctive singular personal directorial vision in that film. If anyone can claim “auteurship” of that film, that person would be Eric Roth, rather than Fincher. And yes, I threw out some names and Zemeckis’ specifically because he directed Forrest Gump. I don’t see much of a fundamental stylistic difference between Gump and Benjamin, but maybe some do. Fincher’s film is clearly more technically polished, but it seems to me like both of those films could have been directed by quite a few middling technically competent Hollywood directors.
A high quality torrent of Nostalghia is available online. Another fucking miracle by Tarkovsky if you ask me. And you should watch One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenivich by Chris Marker. A fucking amazing documentary on Tarkovsky’s last days working on Sacrifice. And Marker is the perfect man to do it, of course, as his filmmaking is about creating his own space and time as well.
Everyone seems pretty cool here. Like my profile says, one’s taste in movies doesn’t elevate or degenerate a person’s worth. I just like arguing about shit like this, lol.
Yeah, BB was just a really weird departure for Fincher, I thought. I mean, it’s just such typical uninspired fare that was so achingly aiming for an Oscar or two. I have a huge soft spot for Fight Club, whether it be a product of an auteur or a music video director. Maybe I’ll watch it again.
Justin, I’d most definitely agree with Bob’s definition, which is the reason I’ve been saying John Waters is an auteur, and David Fincher is not. Thanks for clarifying my argument too, by the way, lol. You summed it up well. It’s like the difference between an artist and a craftsman.
Kubrick was cold, all right. Sure, Path of Glory is an exquisite humanist piece, but he sucks the humanity out of just about everything else he made. Look at A Clockwork Orange. Now, I’m not saying that movies have to stay totally faithful to their source novel, but that novel was about how the ultimate measure of being human is having choice over one’s actions. But Kubrick’s film is all about slick stylized violence. Any meditation on the human condition is completely absent.
A serious question remains as to whether the director exploits or humanizes his subjects. While the movie has engendered some passionate debate, it is most definitely not a masterpiece.
Why do you say that people in Gummo are “the most twisted and awful beings” by the way? isn’t that conclusion a function of Korine’s editorializing? There are times when he just seems to want to depict the most unappealing behavior by his characters. They must have tender and human moments in their lives as well, but his focus is almost purely on the vile and inhuman ones. Why is that?
By the way his “coldness” isn’t always a detriment. It worked brilliantly to his advantage in Dr. Strangelove, which I believe to be his most fully realized film.
However, Lolita is another film in which his coldness and inability or unwillingness to portray genuine human emotions and relationships work to the film’s detriment. I mean, for Christ’s sake, where is the depiction of what brings Humbert and Lolita together? What brings two human beings 40 years apart together sexually? Yes, he had to deal with censors, but he still could have and should have explored the psychology and the emotions involved in such an unusual pairing. But what does he do? He turns the whole thing into a mystery/thriller. Ugh. Do you come away from that film with any real insight or knowledge into what drove Lolita into such a relationship? Sure, you can say that she was just a projection of what Humbert wanted her to be, but Kubrick doesn’t even make a case for that. Is there any insight into Humbert’s moral dilemma? Surely, he must be wrought with a certain sense of guilt, even if not from his own inner sense of morality but at the very least from pressures of society’s ethics. But nothing…no inner turmoil or wrangling.
Ok, David Fincher has a director’s page on theauteurs.com now. It’s official. He’s now an auteur. Sorry for arguing otherwise. Onto other threads now, lol.
Come on, theauteurs.com. Just make that Michael Bay director’s page too. After all, both Fincher and Bay have their stamps of approval from Criterion.
Okay, but in all seriousness, what the hell was Fincher thinking when he included that scene of Cate Blanchett’s character reading a children’s story to Benjamin towards the end of the movie? He’s like 3 physically, but actually like 80 emotionally and intellectually and suffering from Alzheimer’s. Now… who the hell reads a children’s book to a senile 80 year old man? Of course, people were crying through this part, as if this was somehow a poignant moment. But it makes no fucking sense. It’s completely illogical. But boy, does it totally tug at the heartstrings or what? It’s a scene that divulges manipulative disingenuous Hollywood filmmaking in its purest form, and also one that completely undermines the movie’s own premise. Tard-rrific.
Not in real life, but perhaps in David Fincher movies. That scene is followed by another in which Cate Blanchett says to him in baby talk, “My name is Daisy. Can you say Dai-sy?” Hello, the dude is 80. He’s the same age as you!!! Lame.
Tarkovsky almost 3 years ago
Tarkovsky is probably the only filmmaker of whom it could be said that every film he made was a masterpiece.
Now while I agree that Tarkovsky may have his own “language”, I don’t think it’s something that needs to be looked at with any kind of apprehension. In my opinion, all you have to do is let yourself be immersed in his films, to let your ego boundary collapse. A friend once told me that watching a Tarkovsky film was like watching paint dry. Well, he was right in a way. Except, I’d add that it’s like watching an exquisitely beautiful painting dry. Just think of when you go to a museum and you focus on an abstract painting. If that painting resonates with you, then you will experience that moment of what Werner Herzog calls the “ecstatic truth.” Tarkovsky’s films, at least for me, are more of an emotional and a spiritual experience rather than a rational and an intellectual one. And for this very reason, I tend to disagree with those people who compare Tarkovsky to Kubrick. I can’t think of two filmmakers with more disparate artistic visions.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
“Is he on par with a Kubrick, Bergman, Herzog, (insert your favorite here)? Maybe, maybe not.”
Dude, David Fincher is definitely not on par with Kubrick, Bergman, Herzog. And I think you know that too.
It’s not about making a distinction between high and low art. David Fincher makes fairly entertaining films that resonate with a lot of people. And there’s nothing wrong with liking his movies. But there is a reason why this site is called theauteurs.com and not thedirectors.com. Fincher’s films are huge multi-gazillion commercial projects, employing lavish special effects, editing, and so on. Fincher himself doesn’t even know the members of his own so-called production crew. An auteur by definition is someone who has a significant and final say in every aspect of their work. When you are completely entrenched in the Hollywood system, it’s not possible to follow and realize your singular artistic vision.
Look at John Waters for example. He’s not exactly high art, is he? But he’s usually considered an auteur and rightfully so, because he is more or less in complete charge of seeing his own particular artistic vision realized on celluloid.
Sorry, David Fincher doesn’t cut it. And he never will. Well, he shouldn’t anyway.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky almost 3 years ago
I’m familiar with a lot of criticisms of Tarkovsky’s work. But “empty” and “soulless” are new ones. Wowie…could you delineate further. Perfumed Dandy?
And by the way, since when is Oliver Sachs an authority on cinema? Isn’t he the man whose greatest contribution to cinema was writing “Awakenings” which was later adapted into a movie starring Robin Williams? Does Dr. Sachs have a word for patients who liked that movie?
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Well, the term “auteur” is a wee bit relevant since the site is called THEAUTEURS.COM, lmao. But the simple reality is that the site cannot simply accommodate discussion on every single filmmaker in the world. It has to draw a line somewhere. And yes, that line is a subjective one. And personally I have nothing against David Fincher as I believe that he’s quite adept at what he does. But the whole point of a site like this isn’t to be as inclusive as possible, but to be somewhat exclusive. Yes, some people just want to be snobbish and pretentious and want to display for the world their knowledge of obscure cinema. But frankly, at least speaking for myself and my peers, we just want a forum where we can discuss filmmakers who are not discussed in mainstream media. Do you really have an urgent need to discuss David Fincher at a site like this? There are gazillion other sites where you can extol the merits of “Fight Club” or “Benjamin Button”, so must you bring that to this site? I mean the whole world is a sanctuary if you’re a David Fincher fan, but many of us at this site come here to get away from that.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky almost 3 years ago
BOBBY WISE, no one here talked about anyone else’s lack of perception or failure to understand. This was an incredibly civil and polite thread until PERFUMED DANDY came in and then cited Oliver Sachs of all people (who is actually considered by many to be a charlatan in his own field!!!) to volley a not so subtle insult to Tarkovsky fans suggesting that they suffer from “catatonia.” These are his words, not mine. And then, he says Tarkovsky’s works are “empty and soulless.”
I asked him very politely if he could delineate further on his “empty and soulless” comment. Instead of sticking to the subject, now he just goes on to say that Tarkovsky is a “charlatan.” I mean, what the hell…?
I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if someone doesn’t like Tarkovsky’s films. That doesn’t make me like or dislike someone. But at a site like this, people should be mature enough to not just come out of the blue and flame with ad hominem attacks. And as you advised, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY welcome those with differing opinions, but there is no need for infantile belligerence.
And why would you assume that people are bowing down to Tarkovsky a priori anyway? Just because people haven’t taken the time to delineate as to why they appreciate his films doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re bowing down to him a priori. It could very well be that people have very well-formed opinions about why they think Tarkovsky is great. Well, maybe not everyone, but some at least. but wouldn’t the civilized thing be to just ask people to “defend Tarkovsky’s films with solidly-expressed ideas and illuminating concepts” before presuming that they like his films a priori?
It isn’t as if extolling the virtues of Tarkovsky’s films is something that can be done in a brief sentence anyway.
But I’ll quote what Kurosawa had to say about how Tarkovsky filmed something as seemingly simple as a stream.
“Every film by Tarkovsky is marvelous, indeed. He was especially marvelous in handling the Water Element, as seen, for example, in Solaris and Sacrifice. He was somehow able to shoot a pond or water pool as transparent as to allow us to see through to the very bottom. You know, if you do it in an ordinary way, you will for sure find the sky reflected on the water surface. I, too, wanted to shoot water as he did, in making an episode of the Village of Watermills in Dreams. Can you imagine what we did to achieve that? We set up huge cranes soaring to the sky to put up a huge black cloth to prevent the sky reflection on the water surface. Now the riverbed became visible. "
Any of you who have watched either “Andrei Rublev” or “Solaris” or “Sacrifice” knows exactly what Kurosawa is referring to here. Those translucent shots of the stream with the floating weeds…so simple yet unequaled in visual, poetic, and emotional impact than any other in cinema. It captures on celluloid that moment of transcendent beauty, that instantiation of the “ecstatic truth” as Werner fucking Herzog would eloquently put it. Work of a charlatan? I think not.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Bobby Wise, you should be careful before you make a sweeping statement like “none of you know what auteur means.” Umm… dude, I know exactly what it means, which is why David Fincher isn’t an auteur. You are right about one thing, “auteur” doesn’t necessarily denote a certain level or quality. So what does “auteur” mean exactly? It means more than just an “author” by the way. An auteur is someone who not only has a distinct, unique, and personal artistic vision but who also exercises nearly complete creative control and is involved in every aspect of the process. Ed Wood, who some say is the worst filmmaker ever to have lived, is an auteur by this definition. David Fincher is not. Sorry. Auteurship is not about quality, but about the filmmaking process, and the way something like “Benjamin Button” was made doesn’t qualify its nominal author (I say nominal for obvious reasons) to be an auteur. His movie’s marketing and CGI teams have budgets and staff members that dwarf those of other true “auteurs.” You guys actually think that David Fincher had anything resembling complete creative control over “Benjamin Button?” Movies like that are the very antithesis of what auteurship is about.
And again, Bobby Wise, it’s hardly about extolling the virtues of Fellini, Tarkovsky, Bergman, and Godard over and over again. Do you know that one of the very first films theauteurs.com started promoting was “The Housemaid” by Kim Ki-young. Well, I’ve watched 5 other films by this incredible South Korean filmmaker with a singular imaginative oeuvre and the man is mentioned almost nowhere on the internet. That’s what theauteurs.com should really be about. I mean, sure discuss Fincher all you want, no one can stop you. But what is really the point when there are gazillions of other forums to do that. I mean, why not extricate yourself from what is essentially slightly-better-than-standard-mainstream-fare and explore the works of true auteur like Kim Ki-young or Angelopoulos or Bela Tarr?
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Umm, Hitchcock had a fraction of the number of people who worked on “Benjamin Button.” Please. Yes, he had a huge production staff by the standards of the day, but it’s tiny compared to the staffs of these mutil-gazillion dollar blockbusters like today. And sure, I don’t know with 100% certainty that Fincher doesn’t know everyone who works on “his” movie. It’s just a reasonable guess since an innumerable number of people gets involved on such movies. Anyway, go ahead, have your discussions about one of the most talked about directors in the world, lol. The poor guy doesn’t get enough attention. Boohoo.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Please read what I said. I never ever claimed anywhere in this thread—or anywhere else for that matter—that Hitchcock had COMPLETE creative control. I said that auteurs by definition exercise “nearly complete creative control”—a subtle yet important difference. As for qualifying as an AUTEUR, Hitchcock would be a far better candidate as his movies were not put together in a piecemeal process involving innumerable number of people. The word AUTEUR is a neologism. It came into being only about 4 decades ago, and it has a very specific meaning. Well, actually let me correct myself. It is a neologism as it pertains specifically to cinema. We all know that it means “author” in French. Anyway, an auteur by definition has extensive control over his creative vision and is intimately involved in nearly every aspect of the film’s production. Big ass Hollywood productions by definition cannot be made by auteurs. This isn’t snobbery. I’m not even saying that Fincher’s films are necessarily bad. But he isn’t an auteur. And obviously the creators of this site agree with me. Maybe they’ll cave into fanboy demands and include Fincher on their director pages. Or maybe the term “auteur” will be redefined to include people like Fincher, and that’s fine and dandy too.
But look at Benjamin Button. Does that film have any hint whatsoever of a singular and unique artistic vision? If you didn’t know that was directed by Fincher, would you have guessed it in your wildest dreams? That schlock of a movie could’ve been directed by Robert Zemeckis or Ron Howard or any other competent middling Hollywood director.
Again, I’m not saying that Fincher isn’t talented. He does have talent. Heck, I really liked “Fight Club.” I thought it really captured the zeitgeist. It beats a lot of films done by even guys like Godard and Oshima. This isn’t about talent or quality. It’s about what it means to be an “auteur.” It’s about the filmmaking process, not about the relative quality of the finished product. John Waters’ films are pretty crude to say the least and tasteless in many people’s opinion. Nevertheless, that dude is undoubtedly an auteur. He fits the definition to a tee.
Go to Comment
Nagisa Oshima films almost 3 years ago
In the Realm of the Senses and Empire of Passion are two of his least compelling films. Ugh. Poop. Senses has always been and will again be a cash cow for Criterion. Criterion needs to stop putting out the same old shit and start living up to their supposed aim of putting out cinematic art. Right now, they’re just releasing whatever will make them money. I guess they are a business after all, but what really is the point of putting out well-known but mediocre works by directors who have done far more interesting and worthwhile stuff? Death by Hanging is just about Oshima’s least well-known film, at least outside of Japan, but it is also just about his finest film. Shape the fuck up, Criterion.
Go to Comment
Nagisa Oshima films almost 3 years ago
Oops, a double post. My apologies.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Jason, let me preface my reply by saying that you don’t have to worry about coming across as belligerent. I can sense that you’re interested in genuine dialogue, and that is always welcome by me.
And Matt, why provide a definition of how the word is understood and used today and then discard it all together? Words do evolve over the years, and the dictionary definition you provided is how the term is generally used, and not just in popular culture.
To be absolutely honest with you guys, I wasn’t consulting Sarris or Bazin or back issues of Cahiers du Cinema or the dictionary while I was participating in this thread. The definition I was using was one formulated in my brain after years of reading about film (and of course, naturally and necessarily about auteur theory) and watching them. Like Jason pointed out, there has been shit loads of discourse on the concept ever since the term was coined. I do find it rather uncanny though that the definition I have been using is pretty damn close to the one in dictionaries. And no, this isn’t due to any brilliance on my part, but just a natural result of countless hours I’ve devoted to my love for cinema. And when you really read all of what Sarris had to say in his original treatise, it is definitely true to the spirit of what he was saying. The original question raised by this thread was why Fincher was ostensibly not considered an “auteur” by a site that calls itself “theauteurs.com” News flash. Maybe because he isn’t one by the generally accepted definition of the day? LOL. Or maybe this is a pop culture site and they clearly misunderstand the term.
I mean, sure, we can do a literal deconstruction of the letter of Sarris’ words from 4.5 decades ago. I happen to like Sarris and his writing a lot. But trust me, when I say this. Sarris has nothing but contempt for contemporary mainstream films. http://wiredforbooks.org/andrewsarris/ I don’t think you’re going to find much love for Fincher’s films in Sarris’ writing. This is a link to a good interview with Sarris in 2000. It’s over an hour long, so don’t say I didn’t warn you. But in it, he specifically refers to contemporary mainstream studio films as “totally soulless.” And he’s a pretty affable guy, but you will hear the utter disgust in his voice as he says that. His favorite film of all time is “Earring of Madam de…” by Ophuls. I have his all-time top 10 list lying around somewhere and I can tell you with assurance that there was nothing in it from the past 40 years. Yup. No lie. It could actually be that there was nothing on that list since he wrote his notes on auteur theory.
“I’m sorry Blue Kim, but your definition of auteur is making less and less sense and seems a way for you to justify your own personal taste in small, lesser known films.”
Well, Jason, ultimately, I couldn’t care less as to whether or not someone is considered an auteur. My stance all along has been that the term “auteur” shouldn’t really be a value judgment and that Fincher fans do not need to be disheartened by his exclusion from the site. And that might sound paradoxical coming from someone who is clearly not a huge fan of Fincher, but it is what it is. In my humble opinion—and I’m sure many disagree, and with justifiable reasons for doing so—there are auteurs who make generally poor films and non-auteurs who make generally good films. I happen to think of Fincher as a non-auteur but a technically sound director who occasionally rises over the heap of trash that Hollywood recycles.
But as for “Benjamin Button”…sigh. I cannot see for the life of me how there’s any distinctive singular personal directorial vision in that film. If anyone can claim “auteurship” of that film, that person would be Eric Roth, rather than Fincher. And yes, I threw out some names and Zemeckis’ specifically because he directed Forrest Gump. I don’t see much of a fundamental stylistic difference between Gump and Benjamin, but maybe some do. Fincher’s film is clearly more technically polished, but it seems to me like both of those films could have been directed by quite a few middling technically competent Hollywood directors.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky almost 3 years ago
A high quality torrent of Nostalghia is available online. Another fucking miracle by Tarkovsky if you ask me. And you should watch One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenivich by Chris Marker. A fucking amazing documentary on Tarkovsky’s last days working on Sacrifice. And Marker is the perfect man to do it, of course, as his filmmaking is about creating his own space and time as well.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Everyone seems pretty cool here. Like my profile says, one’s taste in movies doesn’t elevate or degenerate a person’s worth. I just like arguing about shit like this, lol.
Yeah, BB was just a really weird departure for Fincher, I thought. I mean, it’s just such typical uninspired fare that was so achingly aiming for an Oscar or two. I have a huge soft spot for Fight Club, whether it be a product of an auteur or a music video director. Maybe I’ll watch it again.
Go to Comment
Films that made you physically ill after watching almost 3 years ago
“Juno.” Made me wish I was an abortion so I would’ve never had to watch it.
Go to Comment
Great performances that hardly ever get discussed almost 3 years ago
Erland Josephson in Tarkovsky’s “Nostalghia” and “Sacrifice”
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Justin, I’d most definitely agree with Bob’s definition, which is the reason I’ve been saying John Waters is an auteur, and David Fincher is not. Thanks for clarifying my argument too, by the way, lol. You summed it up well. It’s like the difference between an artist and a craftsman.
Go to Comment
GODARD'S LATER WORK IN THE CRITERION COLLECTION? almost 3 years ago
I’ll tell you what I DON’T want to see. King Lear. Ugh.
Go to Comment
Can Tom Cruise's career recover? almost 3 years ago
He needs to go back to making homoerotic films like Top Gun.
I’ve yet to recover from watching that. And that was like 20 years ago.
Go to Comment
Most Overrated Movies almost 3 years ago
The Searchers.
Go to Comment
Is Stanley Kubrick 'cold' or not? almost 3 years ago
Kubrick was cold, all right. Sure, Path of Glory is an exquisite humanist piece, but he sucks the humanity out of just about everything else he made. Look at A Clockwork Orange. Now, I’m not saying that movies have to stay totally faithful to their source novel, but that novel was about how the ultimate measure of being human is having choice over one’s actions. But Kubrick’s film is all about slick stylized violence. Any meditation on the human condition is completely absent.
Go to Comment
Is Stanley Kubrick 'cold' or not? almost 3 years ago
Oops, double post. My apologies.
Go to Comment
What Actress from the "Golden Age" would you want date or ....... almost 3 years ago
I’d really like to date Jean Simmons’ brains out, as she looked in Black Narcissus.
Go to Comment
Thoughts on "Gummo" almost 3 years ago
A serious question remains as to whether the director exploits or humanizes his subjects. While the movie has engendered some passionate debate, it is most definitely not a masterpiece.
Why do you say that people in Gummo are “the most twisted and awful beings” by the way? isn’t that conclusion a function of Korine’s editorializing? There are times when he just seems to want to depict the most unappealing behavior by his characters. They must have tender and human moments in their lives as well, but his focus is almost purely on the vile and inhuman ones. Why is that?
Go to Comment
WHATARE YOUR MAJOR INTERESTS/AREAS OF EXPERTISE IIN FIILM? almost 3 years ago
I’m an expert in dispensing questionable opinions.
I’m interested in reading other people’s opinions which hopefully will be less questionable.
Go to Comment
Is Stanley Kubrick 'cold' or not? almost 3 years ago
By the way his “coldness” isn’t always a detriment. It worked brilliantly to his advantage in Dr. Strangelove, which I believe to be his most fully realized film.
However, Lolita is another film in which his coldness and inability or unwillingness to portray genuine human emotions and relationships work to the film’s detriment. I mean, for Christ’s sake, where is the depiction of what brings Humbert and Lolita together? What brings two human beings 40 years apart together sexually? Yes, he had to deal with censors, but he still could have and should have explored the psychology and the emotions involved in such an unusual pairing. But what does he do? He turns the whole thing into a mystery/thriller. Ugh. Do you come away from that film with any real insight or knowledge into what drove Lolita into such a relationship? Sure, you can say that she was just a projection of what Humbert wanted her to be, but Kubrick doesn’t even make a case for that. Is there any insight into Humbert’s moral dilemma? Surely, he must be wrought with a certain sense of guilt, even if not from his own inner sense of morality but at the very least from pressures of society’s ethics. But nothing…no inner turmoil or wrangling.
Go to Comment
Thoughts on "Gummo" almost 3 years ago
Nothing’s wrong with you. I love Werner fucking Herzog, but even he can be wrong at times.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Ok, David Fincher has a director’s page on theauteurs.com now. It’s official. He’s now an auteur. Sorry for arguing otherwise. Onto other threads now, lol.
Come on, theauteurs.com. Just make that Michael Bay director’s page too. After all, both Fincher and Bay have their stamps of approval from Criterion.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Okay, but in all seriousness, what the hell was Fincher thinking when he included that scene of Cate Blanchett’s character reading a children’s story to Benjamin towards the end of the movie? He’s like 3 physically, but actually like 80 emotionally and intellectually and suffering from Alzheimer’s. Now… who the hell reads a children’s book to a senile 80 year old man? Of course, people were crying through this part, as if this was somehow a poignant moment. But it makes no fucking sense. It’s completely illogical. But boy, does it totally tug at the heartstrings or what? It’s a scene that divulges manipulative disingenuous Hollywood filmmaking in its purest form, and also one that completely undermines the movie’s own premise. Tard-rrific.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
Not in real life, but perhaps in David Fincher movies. That scene is followed by another in which Cate Blanchett says to him in baby talk, “My name is Daisy. Can you say Dai-sy?” Hello, the dude is 80. He’s the same age as you!!! Lame.
Go to Comment
Is Stanley Kubrick 'cold' or not? almost 3 years ago
Lolita contains depths of humanity? And A Clockwork Orange does too? Would someone mind providing some concrete examples?
Go to Comment