register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Hans Zimmer & Junkie XL)

Film, TV & DVD » Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Hans Zimmer & Junkie XL) (Posts 91 to 100 of 100)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2016 edited
    Martijn, when I use the term 'auteur' in this context, I'm obviously referring to the established term as used in cinema theory -- first coined by the French New Wavers in Cahiers de Cinema about older Hollywood directors, but later applied to anyone with a distinct 'stamp' in terms of visuals and thematics. I'm NOT talking about the literary definition of 'authorship', which is a rather different thing altogether.

    People are free to say that they DON'T think Snyder is an auteur (in the cinema theory meaning), but I would think his work speaks for itself. Over the course of some 6-7 films by now, he's shown some very distinct visual and thematic traits that run through ALL of them -- some of which I mentioned earlier in this thread. BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN may be the film that has the LEAST of it, at least in the last third, probably due to some form of external interference, but it still has it.

    You don't have to be a Satyjait Ray or Michelangelo Antonionio or Ingmar Bergman or Jean-Luc Godard to attain this description. It can be applied just as well on people like Michael Bay, Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Tim Burton and -- yes -- Zack Snyder. Just because someone doesn't like Snyder's style, doesn't mean he's NOT an auteur. It just means you don't like the way he conceptualizes his films. Which is fair enough.
    I am extremely serious.
  2. I beg to differ. One of the most imminent exponents of the Novelle Vague, Francios Truffaut, defined cinema d'auteur exactly the way I did. The man (or woman) directing the film should have as much control as possible over the creative process.
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2016
    Captain Future wrote
    I beg to differ. One of the most imminent exponents of the Novelle Vague, Francios Truffaut, defined cinema d'auteur exactly the way I did. The man (or woman) directing the film should have as much control as possible over the creative process.


    Sure. But it doesn't mean that he has to WRITE it, or that the film can't be produced by a big studio. It's an advantage, but it's not a prerequisite. That was the idea then, and it's definitely the idea now -- with the slight expansion of the term's meaning.
    I am extremely serious.
  4. Volker, one of the classic auteurs in the Truffaut sense was Alfred Hitchcock (and, later, Steven Spielberg, who had a lot of respect from Truffaut in his early days).

    Hitchcock rarely, if ever, wrote his own scripts. The only time Spielberg is credited as a writer it's because the original writer wanted his name off the project (Paul Schrader on Close Encounters) or he was reappropriating another auteur's work for himself (AI).
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  5. As I said, the term is fuzzy, as such terms tend to be.
    Yet, to call a streamlined Hollywood blockbuster, which in every aspect is fine-tuned to mass appeal, an autheur film, is too much of a stretch IMO.
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2016 edited
    Captain Future wrote
    As I said, the term is fuzzy, as such terms tend to be.
    Yet, to call a streamlined Hollywood blockbuster, which in every aspect is fine-tuned to mass appeal, an autheur film, is too much of a stretch IMO.


    As I said, it depends. Some directors are able to get their "auteurism" across even within a Hollywood paradigm (Scott, Spielberg, Burton, Fincher etc.). It's not a term that is exclusive for arthouse directors. In fact, when the Cahiers writers first used the term, they also applied it on Hollywood directors like Hitchcock, Hawks, Ford etc.
    I am extremely serious.
  7. And let's not forget Andre Bazin's classic "The Auteur Politics" out of the equation. In fact the then-future directors refined Bazin's points.

    I'd definitely say that Ridley Scott is an auteur even in a film like Gladiator or Black Hawk Down (should one see beyond the "mere adaptation" of Saving Private Ryan for a more modern warfare setting). I'd actually also say so about Tony Scott (who was all style) even with a Quentin Tarantino (!) script.

    Spielberg also - not just visually. The childlike sense of awe, the parental issues at hand: the "absent/reluctant father" issue, whether it's Roy leaving his family to pursue his obsession (Close Encounters), the absent-but-only-mentioned father in ET, the estranged Henry Jones, Sr., the unwilling Oskar Schindler and Alan Grant, hell, even Munich's Avner not being there to raise his kid due to his mission. Children in peril, it's all always there!
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2016 edited
    Absolutely. Both Scott brothers would qualify. And Spielberg is a given. But they don't only have to be 'big names'.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2016 edited
    Thor wrote
    Martijn, when I use the term 'auteur' in this context, I'm obviously referring to the established term as used in cinema theory -- first coined by the French New Wavers in Cahiers de Cinema about older Hollywood directors, but later applied to anyone with a distinct 'stamp' in terms of visuals and thematics.


    I see. OK, fair enough.
    I wasn't aware of that (to me rather oddball) interpretation.

    But -and of course I am by no means an expert here, nor have I ever followed any classes, or indeed read any academic texts on the matter- when I just now read some of the information on several sites, that particular approach seems to have been widely criticised and disregarded since the sixties, for exactly those reasons I quite intuitively already proposed here!

    So I don't feel out of line at all, and stand by my earlier statements.
    While I am certainly not adverse to giving a director his due for the visual trademark items he may imbue a film with, the very idea of him being an "author" OVER the efforts of the entire team (script writers, producers, editors, composer) AND even the source material is truly strange to me.

    The phrase "auteur" is poorly chosen, and only really seems to have had some meaning and impact during one of those rare times that cinema(tic approach) was truly reinvented. That it's apparently still used today seems anachronistic and ill-fitting. Or at very best solely of any interest to and for that particular sport of academiae.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2016 edited
    You're right that the term has been the object of many a criticism, deconstruction and re-evaluation over the years, but the gist of it still remains. Thankfully. We need something to denote those directors who have such clear visions in what they do, whatever the source material they work with. But that the term itself is open to semantic debate is only healthy.
    I am extremely serious.

91 to 100 of 100

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >