I don’t the understand the backlash to this film. The film is a triumph of tone, and a clear example of what a director brings to a film. The screenplay is similar to ‘Gump’, but at the same time, the end film is its polar opposite. The differences are very clear when you consider the contrasts between the relationships at the core the two films. Forrest Gump spends the entirety of the film utterly and inconceivably devoted to Jenny, simply because she made him feel better about himself, and as such that film is an exercise in fanatical romanticism, where Jenny becomes in Forrest’s twist mind an idealised version of woman, whereas Benjamin Button is ultimately about choosing to be in love, and the idea that affection between two develops over time and that love ultimately is not the sum total of life. Maybe I am just a cynic but I find the latter a more resonant idea.
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.
Why just modern directors? There are classical directors who delivered just as much, if not more, than either Hitchcock or Kurasawa. Billy Wilder, for example, or Michael Powell.
The high art distinction is nonsense. The obvious example here is Hitchcock, a man often held up as the greatest English language filmmaker, but his films were clearly geared toward commercial, as well as artistic success. Film is an amalgam of many disparate elements into one form, and as such, the best films are those are successfully able to balance the high with the low, that is the artistic with the entertainment. Eg: Kurasawa was considered a mainstream director in Japan, only art director in the West. Keeping this in mind, Fincher is clearly a filmmaker of the highest order, and it is insane for him not to be included, especially when all his films have their own pages.
And how has Fight Club not aged well? It’s still a prescient now as it was at the time, being about an age group, rather than a specific time.
This is the issue I’ve always wondered about: Now I understand the definition of auteur, but it doesn’t always apply to just the director. I think there are many screenwriters who can be considered the auteur of the piece, Charlie Kaufman or Robert Towne being the obvious examples. Also, can a producer be an auteur? I argue yes- the best examples being either George Lucas or Walt Disney.
Thoughts?
Such a fantastic film almost 3 years ago
I don’t the understand the backlash to this film. The film is a triumph of tone, and a clear example of what a director brings to a film. The screenplay is similar to ‘Gump’, but at the same time, the end film is its polar opposite. The differences are very clear when you consider the contrasts between the relationships at the core the two films. Forrest Gump spends the entirety of the film utterly and inconceivably devoted to Jenny, simply because she made him feel better about himself, and as such that film is an exercise in fanatical romanticism, where Jenny becomes in Forrest’s twist mind an idealised version of woman, whereas Benjamin Button is ultimately about choosing to be in love, and the idea that affection between two develops over time and that love ultimately is not the sum total of life. Maybe I am just a cynic but I find the latter a more resonant idea.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
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.
Go to Comment
Directors almost 3 years ago
Why just modern directors? There are classical directors who delivered just as much, if not more, than either Hitchcock or Kurasawa. Billy Wilder, for example, or Michael Powell.
Go to Comment
Fincher, The Auteur almost 3 years ago
The high art distinction is nonsense. The obvious example here is Hitchcock, a man often held up as the greatest English language filmmaker, but his films were clearly geared toward commercial, as well as artistic success. Film is an amalgam of many disparate elements into one form, and as such, the best films are those are successfully able to balance the high with the low, that is the artistic with the entertainment. Eg: Kurasawa was considered a mainstream director in Japan, only art director in the West. Keeping this in mind, Fincher is clearly a filmmaker of the highest order, and it is insane for him not to be included, especially when all his films have their own pages.
And how has Fight Club not aged well? It’s still a prescient now as it was at the time, being about an age group, rather than a specific time.
Go to Comment
WHAT AUTEUR WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO WRITE A BOOK ABOUT, AND WHY? almost 3 years ago
I don’t believe there are enough books on The Archers. They seem to be severely underrated in the canon of classic cinema.
Go to Comment
The Definition of Auteur almost 3 years ago
This is the issue I’ve always wondered about: Now I understand the definition of auteur, but it doesn’t always apply to just the director. I think there are many screenwriters who can be considered the auteur of the piece, Charlie Kaufman or Robert Towne being the obvious examples. Also, can a producer be an auteur? I argue yes- the best examples being either George Lucas or Walt Disney.
Thoughts?
Go to Comment