Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Much more interesting question IMO
you lads should get out more.
first response, right on!
they're ultimately responsible for artistic integrity of the films they oversee
They come on, they perform the parts they're given, they have a very simple job to do and if they do it well then that's what should be expected of them
...is what I say
if you don't notice them they're doing a good job, sorta thing
Certainly on a low-medium budget indie the director tends to take on wide creative responsibilities but I'm kinda with William Goldman that giving all the credit to the director ignores the role of writers, sound designers, editors, producers and even actors. Generally speaking film-making is a collaborative process and the whole idea of massively amping up one person's responsibility is a bit exaggerated and not necessarily always merited.
Certainly I don't think it's a coincidence (or unreasonable) that the producer always gets the best film Oscar.
mind you, for many of my favourite films the writer has worked very closely with the director and the writing process has been largely collaborative - tailored ultimately to the director's vision
i get the sense that ideally, all the peripheral contributors are doing this as well. not usually a fan of autocracy but in the world of film, by ALL means
Again it tends to be quite often these days but certainly you get films where, say, the producer is the one with the vision (or maybe an author of a source material) and the director is essentially hired to make the project work how the producer wants...
speaking purely subjectively, it seems that the producers should bloody direct it themselves if they're the ones with the vision. write it too. like michael rosen* <3
*wanted Watership Down filmed. the director died, so he wrote and directed it himself, then did the same for The Plague Dogs. and he did, frankly, a bloody incredible job
And the assumption that someone "has to" or "should" direct to have full control. Which isn't necessarily the case.
I mean the thing is we, as people who aren't involved with film-making, tend to have very little idea of how films are made and get a lot of our ideas from the film press (which tend to be unquestioningly pro-Auteur theory) and interview with directors (who obviously have motives to talk up their own role). I'm not claiming to be an expert (because I'm not) or to have extensive experience on film sets (I don't) but certainly my experiences from my degree and MA generally have led me to be a bit skeptical of the idea that the director has to be the hub of all creativity.
in the critical discourse. very few writers let alone cinematographers, sound engineers etc manage that kind of profile. guess diablo cody is more or less the same. both employ a very extravagant, one might say conceited writing-style, which strikes me as exactly what a critic might notice
Film critics are generally self-important grandiose idiots who only spot what's over-emphasised, overstated and really fucking obvious. Far too much faith is put in them.
everything upthread is just my own projected egomania, or 'subjective ideation of the film as product of a unified mind centred around a necessary director-figure', if you want me to get obnoxious
you would have heard about Hollywood scripts being 'built' rather than written?
The scripts are made with a view to marketing, various writers are used and sacked, and what we end up with is a homgoenous, lifeless mess.
Give me one persons vision any day of the week. That's not to downplay the role of the film makers, from the catering to the sound designers-they contribute and collaborate to make a film, sure. But it needs one persons vision to ultimately hold a film together.
or that the 'built' scripts necessarily produce a worst result. Or that you necessarily end up with a homogenous lifelong mess.
It's easy to simplify into a independent films good/Hollywood films bad dichotomy but some fantastic films and TV come out of the 'committee' writing process when it goes right and some Christ-awful self-indulgent nonsense comes out of independent films and the auteur method when it goes wrong.
I don't think I'm being inaccurate (feel free to correct me) to say that you prefer arthouse films to mainstream Hollywood films but ultimately that's a subjective personal preference as much as it is a statement of the respective quality of the two processes. Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not denying that there are some brilliant films made by writers-directors with single-minded visions but I certainly don't think that's the only way strong films can or should be made.
but I'm sure there's scores of films where - particularly in the case of an inexperienced first-time director - they're taking shedloads of advice and guidance from the producer, actors, editors and maybe even listening to the writer. I think even then we can't be certain it derives from the director's vision.
But you'd hope, over a number of films, that that particular film makers voice emerged in that time. To me finding a new director is like meeting a new person for the first time- you start to learn all about their particular traits and worldview. Except it goes even further than that- you begin to understand their fears and desires, their dreams and nightmares. Hopefully that will make you look or think about the world in a different way.
I don't think you get that with the average Hollywood film.
I'll watch anything I think has been made with a bit of love or creativity in it.
You're right, some 'committee' writing works, probably for TV and comedies- I'd question that's the case for films though. TV works in a different way- you're making numerous episodes over a number of series with various plot lines- you need a number of writers.
A 90 minute film only needs one writer. Sometimes you might get a collaboration, but any more than that and it gets messy. Too many cooks spoil the broth, etc. So I guess you could also argue that the writer takes on some kind of authorship as well.
i came very, very close to dying of boredom when i watched about an hour of one of his films
The only director I can think of with a 100% strike rate. Haneke's brilliant too but he's made some utter dreck.
Apalling hitters to shitters ratio and he couldn't direct traffic without adding a gay subtext, but when he's on form he's brilliant.
He's one of the most consistent film makers out there. Can only think of Time of the Wolf and Code Unknown as being less good, but even those are pretty accomplished.
And he made that twice.
I almost had a heart attack watching the original for the first time.
You can have the remake.
agreed. a shitty misogynistic bellend
you guys are idiots
includes a few already mentioned here
She's pretending to dislike things on the basis that I like them again. Just ignore it.
as if i'd give a shit
i dislike e-fucking-nough
one down, coen brothers to go, idk
BUT THEY'RE THE BEST IN HOLLYWOOD ITS ALL RELATIVE
and it's more that I think they're massively over-rated rather than actively bad...
+100 indie points
One great film, one alright film. Still interested to see what he'll do next.
as a break from writing a film about suicide. Let's hope that comes out at some point soon.
chan wook park
stoker worth it?
aye i really liked it.
but it's absolutely fucking wonderful
^this this post if you know nothing about films and just say 'the plot was a bit obvious but the cinematography was stunning' after every film
I DON'T KNOW
whether he deserves canonisation for Safe or execution for Velvet Goldmine
so annoyed i missed I Wish at the cinema.
Didn't enjoy The Circle much at all. It felt very flat, and the best thing about Crimson Gold was the energy and silence and alienation all mixed up together. I'll watch them both again someday.
had me in ruins
I'll watch it this weekend, I think, because I really want to like it even half as much as I did Crimson Gold.
Siddiq Barmak's another good Iranian director, if anyone wants to know. 'Osama' is well worth seeing.
god I'm such a friggin dilettante
except sad vacation was rubbish. did you see tokyo park?
Nah, he`s lost it.
don't think many people liked it as much as I did though
no way in hell
but I really love everything else of his, and Les Amants du Pont Neuf is my stock ‘favourite film’ answer. Any entry-level suggestions of similar directors?
highly doubt anything else released this year will come close to spring breakers
(has two new films at Cannes, one a documentary about Dune, one a new feature)
holy mountain is all-time amazing, el topo is horrendous
Probably more rewatcheable Than the The Holy Mountain.
(does he still make films?)
only seen a few of his films but it's difficult to think of many people better currently going
he definitely could end up being one of the most interesting directors around
I'm not really sure he's got that much about him, from what I've seen so far. Without wanting to harp on about Malick, Nichols does seem to be indebted to him without offering anything new. David Gordon Green already came along and did this type of poetic Southern gothic drama a whole lot better.
has a completely different feel - it has an oppressive atmosphere
Mud looks pretty Malick-esque though... he's still young though I think he's got potential
Hands down. Even his "lesser" films are entertaining.
That'll be good