The "auteur" fetish has haunted world cinema for over fifty years, and an awful lot of film has been wasted as a result. This is a classic example of why directors shouldn't be allowed to write their own films. Could someone out there please write a big fat book with lots of footnotes calling time on the whole nonsense, so that films only get made if they are properly scripted?
No man will marry a bilakoro
This is a ridiculous comment. Films are all about looking and the overscripted nonsense you'd rather see in it's place is bland nonsense and doesn't belong in film.
The auteur 'fetish' is what keeps cinema alive. Film-makers should be allowed the freedom to express their ideas with the same personal perspective as all the other arts. And yes, this must allow for indiosyncratic and subjective views to be aired. The world is all the better for these film makers.
Hollywood should be ashamed of the pulp they flood the markets with. In fact they have unmade cinema and relegated it to a mere commodity. Shameful.
Dark Horse.
I'm with karlellison on this one.
It is the 'auteurs' who have consistently rehaped cinema and influenced the work of future film-makers. Even when they have succumbed to the mainstream (and here I'm thinking of anybody from Fritz Lang to Orson Wells to Quentin Tarantino), theirs are the films that stand out from the crowd. It is the auteurs who make the original vision manifest and have the nerve to drive that vision forwards. Directors shouldn't be allowed to write their own films? Perhaps you have a problem with composers conducting their own scores. What arrant nonsense!
I used to be somebody else; but I traded myself in...
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
i don't understand how these douchebags come across these movies. they're not for you. stick to what you like.
share