I like Pauline Kael's take, as outlined here. The problem with hipster art, is it often becomes a reverb-chamber of a short list of acceptably cool styles. The best art is usually both innovative and appealing to the masses. The passage of time can be a great test of artistic merit.
It's very interesting to watch this again after a year away. Again, I've primarily been a stage actor, but I'm trying to get into more screen roles. This year, I've been working on a film with a very strong vision from the director-writer (and probably editor). It was very interesting to me, though, how much input the DP has in this collaboration. Not wanting to be too big (always the theater actor's worry), I was constantly asking about framing, and it was usually the DP that answered me. He also gave me some acting tips (direction) that were more helpful than the those from the director - such as how much I can move, should I turn just a peck more to the right. He understood the characters and scenes as much as the "creator" (director), and their collaboration was fascinating to me. Which makes me wonder even more about the relationship between these two roles - in our film, the director had storyboarded everything, but it seemed the DP was making as many choices as possible, based on the original intent. (Side note: it's my first time working with green screen, compositing, miniatures, puppet-demons, as well as my first time attempt at some ADR - in French, a language I don't speak, and it was tough enough to do on set - in a couple days.) Thanks, again, John, for your wonderful insights!
I hope someone responsible for Filmmaker IQ reads this.. I subscribed about a minute in. Very nice, factual and down to earth, while still having enough graphics to make the points come across. It is so nice to see a channel, once in a while, that isn't just flashy fast-paced clickbait in video format. Pretty please do keep up the good work.
Just wanted to say that I love your videos. I've been watching them for a long time now and they're great. Very explanatory, well edited, and of course chock-filled with great examples of both Film History and Theory. Hopefully you continue to produce them so I can continue to enjoy them for much time to come.
John, thank you for putting together such great lessons. I have used many of these to not only spur discussion in my high school film production course, but to inspire the upcoming generation of young filmmakers.
Awesome! We're working behind the scenes on some web applications that might be useful for classrooms, And of course, there's a lot of topics to be covered still - be sure to stay tuned.
14:41 THANK YOU for discussing the myth that Tim Burton was the creative genius behind The Nightmare Before Christmas. I loved the movie, but I've always had a love-hate relationship with Burton, largely stemming from my feelings that one of his major claims to fame was truly someone else's work that he gave the idea to then slapped his name on.
When asked "So what do you do?" and the answer is "I make film" or "I am in the film business" one usually thinks of directors for they are the ones having to make all the crucial decisions and supervise everyone else's too. Consider making of a film just like the construction of the building. There is the person who pays for everything ,the one who makes sure everything is legal and paid for (producer), the architect who makes the initial drawings (writer), civil and mechanical engineers who work on those drawings (production planning team), the workers who carry out their orders ,while putting some of their own touch (technicians), the chief supervising engineer (director) who sometime is the architect himself and the materials or furniture that define what the building will look like (cast members). Changing just one of them the building will never be the same. So you see, making the building is a team's work but some people's work, but not all team members receive the same payment or credit.
Thanks again for your great work. This is really a high quality channel. I hope you get a lot more subscribers. This channel deserves it. Keep up the amazing work.
John, I am impressed,,, your French is on point. Don't know how many bloopers you went thru to get to the final cut, no matter, you sir are a wealth of knowledge!
It's a bit simplistic for my taste, too. Movies are a collaborative effort and any number of things can make a bad movie. Although it's true in a sense that a director should be able to guide all of those pieces into one cohesive and hopefully entertaining piece but sometimes it falls through.
Uberslick basically all the crew are making the film. But only the director exists, everybody else simply doesn't exist. It's kinda author's dictatorship.
I didn´t know there was a term for this, but I understand the "theory". I know alot of people who won´t see a film or must see it just because of someone. Not necassary because of the director, it´s as mentioned in the end of the video maybe more of some of the cast for the casuals and some of the crew for the die hards like me. To be honest, there are alot of movies that I have watched "just because" this way, Harryhousen movies for starters.
Thank you for this. Truly helpful. Sadly, I got more information on this topic by watching this video than listening to 3 one-hour lectures at the best filmmaking degree course in Britain. Again, thank you.
In my opinion I believe that a director can only be an Auteur when he had a strong hand in the other aspects of film making e.g writing, story boarding, music etc. Someone like Miyazaki would fit into this category as he does many roles in the film making process, even collaborating with Joe Hisashi on the music.
before watching this I had totally dismissed auteur theory as the work of self-important directors and clueless critics, but now I see it's merits in the context of it's history, thankyou.
Wes Anderson was distracting me with his style when I seen the skiing chase scene, from the movie 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' imposing his style to look like a scene from the puppet TV show Thunderbirds. That was the first idea that came to mind about a director style influence. I hope the new site will come back soon. Facebook is fine and all but it's not the same.
Thanks for the heads-up about you butchering the French language! Though you had some of them right, the majority was kind of gibberish to a French guy like me, but as you always write concepts and names, it was kinda funny to compare how we would pronounce it here and how you tried to do so there. Great video, as always, and impressive archives too! Was that hard to find those early French films excerpts? ;)
I understand what you mean when you describe early French silent film as Avant Garde, but to be considered Avant Garde would that not mean established methods and ideas would have to have be subverted or twisted? And with it being so early in the life of film as an art form were there already established methods and ideas to be experimented with?
+Paul Higgins good question! You must consider the historical context though. Un Chen Angelou came out in 1929 - that's 2 years after The Jazz Singer. In the States the film industry was really pretty established by the mid 1910s and a substantive export to Europe by the 20s. Avant Garde in this sense would be rejecting Hollywood industry styles for more experimental cutting and visual techniques.
Oh, come now! EVERYONE knows "The Big Bus" was the greatest film ever made! The greatest line ever spoken in the history of the cinema has to be; "I don't care what anyone says! I DID NOT eat one hundred and ten passengers! It was my co-driver, Benidx! I only ate a foot!" The depth of that statement alone could lead one to a life of inner reflection and enlightenment! See what I did there? My point is that the film stands on its own merits in the end. I love your channel!!!!
Its true that more credit should to be given to the rest of the teem, with some films the director is mere management. For example, the later epics by David Lean ( Lawrence of Arabia, Dr Zhivago, Ryan's daughter) mostly resound the talents of the cinematographer and writer (Freddie young & Robert Bolt) more than Lean himself.
One could argue that the communication to a team of people is what makes a great film. As you say in your excellent summary and history of the auteur theory the vision may come from many places not just the director. However, if you are unable to communicate and share that vision then the chances are the film will suffer. This was a great film on a wonderful subject, thank you.
This seems to me not that hard to keep straight. You can talk about a film ONLY . . . or you can talk about a film AND its Director. They're two different conversations, each having its own standards. Don't confuse the two . . . and there's no conflict or contradiction.
+greenrate but can you really? Can you separate a novel from the author? Can you separate an actor from the performance? Psycho gives us a good test case. We have two films, same script, same shots, but you have two completely different films.
Another video I enjoyed watching. Thank you. You need to set up an interview with Osborne or Mankiewicz on TCM for some film segments. :) Thanks for not showing the slicing of the mule’s eye in UN CHIEN ANDALOU scene. After suffering through 2 World Wars and Nazi occupation, the French were certainly entitled to some pleasant distractions Like Sarris’ theory. Especially ‘distinguishable personality’ Pauline Kael acted like a professional Troll. Kael never made a film, but was convinced she knew how to make a ‘good’ film. Hawks, Hitchcock, and Welles worked with their own tight knit group of actors and crew. Hawks, in an interview, said he would get good ideas from his crew on set whenever he encountered a scene that wasn’t working.
Thank you for very nice and cohesive comment on auteur theory. I´m grateful especially for the second part about Sarris and Kael, because it is not so well known (outside usa) - on the other hand the french story is little bit simplistic. The problem with Truffaut + the rest of Cahiers was that they were too young to be the measure of things. The pamphlet - Certain tendency… was trying to provoke reaction attacking the best cinema + used the poor guys as Autant-Lara etc. (naming them „cinema of quality“) as a contrast to people as Bresson, Cocteau or others „darlings“ of Cahiers. But if you watch Truffaut´s movies since the late 60s you´ll see that there is not much of experimenting and he actually makes hommage to „metteur en scene“ in Day for Night (73), which has been famously criticezed by Godard. Mr. Godard is other case - he was actually againts mise-en-scene even as a critic - not mentioning he was (and is) compeletely nuts and since the 70s almost unwatchable. Chabrol was actually making no experiments and all the time mainly crime stories as all the „cinema of quality“ guys did years before him - because there is huge tradition of crime cinema in France. Maybe the only guy who stuck with mise-en-scene was Rivette - but he was completely forgotten till the early 90s. But these 5 guys (+Rohmer) were not the main strain of french cinema even during the hype of nouvelle vague in the early 60s - there are tons of directors that has been forgotten - actually beacause they make the Cahiers-nouvelle vague-point of view too complicated - thus skip them (I mean - Malle, Lelouch or Deville + many others). Other problem with Cahiers is that there not much known about the criticism they caused in their time and rejective reactions as in case of revue Positif / Cahiers also went completely nuts during the 70s New Hollywood era - actually rejecting majority of movies produced in Hollywood that actually worshipped the cult of Cahiers. On the contrary they have been praised by Positif + Michel Ciment. I pressume you´re read the Cahiers volumes translated by Hillier - and for myself I have to say that 70% that Cahiers wrote is utter rubbish - and auteur theory - at least in the classical sense as being created by Cahiers - is huge misunderstanding and is causing nowadays lot of damage for cinema history. I understand that it caused huge turmoil and changes in the thinking of many directors but in the essence it was (a) very superficial and with many logical gaps + (b) betrayed by the founding fathers as Truffaut
thanks for the insight. I'm studying the french new wave in paris and the teachers warship the cahiers critics the new wave etc. I personally love the godard's 60's films(I haven't seen any more recent ones) but what i appreciate is the technical aspect and innovative storytelling. But analyzing them in class is way too heavy in content... These teachers see a meaning in every detail of these films(especially godard) that in the end is too much. And who is godard to make people think that cinema is finished and he is the only "cinéaste" left? ...Thats fucking depressing^^
The really important thing that auteur theory brought us is the recognition of a movie as the effort and vision of a individual, many people steel dont know that is someone behind the camera
Excellent effort on pronouncing French words. Of course excellent details, I don't know how you are able to research all this and bring it across in a way that we can understand. Is this "auteur"? Keep it up.
Is it possible to suggest a topic for the next video or is there a set curriculum? If so, could you guys do a video on the use of handheld cameras through the history of cinema?
12:05 I saw you holding back laughter there. Anyway, did you know a few of your videos are being presented as a resource by my film history college professor? These are really good.
Good and informative video, but i noticed one mistake. Truffant wrote about "ceirtain tendency in french cinema" in 1954 and Andre Bazin wrote aboute "les politique des auteurs" in 1957
Thanks for this academic piece. It is enlightening for budding artists and craftsmen. I enjoy movies alot and aspire to be an author one day, this topic certainly puts art into perspective. Paulettes and Sarristes' thoughts were both important with both having their own merits. I especially liked how you tied it all up in the end. Good job and keep it up!
Another very informative video - thank you! After just watching your take on acting (which, as an actor, is a good refresher), I've been through my social media thread, and there's a theater director friend who is constantly going on about the importance of the director in theater, which in my opinion is different than the importance of the director in film. I understand that, in film, a director's wishes will probably win out over a writer's, whereas, in theater, I think the writer is the "author" and the rest of us are interpretive artists. It's a fascinating idea, but I think I'm on the side with the Paulettes (and John's side - a lot of people have to work together to make a movie).
+Christopher Prentice +Christopher Prentice well in theater person with the final say in how a scene will be played is the actor. Whatever he or she does regardless of the writers or director's intention is how that performance is going to be that night. In a film, the final call is made by the director, if the actor didn't deliver it the way the director wanted, there can be another take. And then there's that whole camera-stylo thing we talked about in the Auteur video. I do spend a lot of time thinking about the difference between theater and film. There's strangely a very big devide between the two mediums.
You're absolutely right. The difference between film and theater, and who might be "author" is my argument with my other friend. In film, there are many ways to "fix" an actor's performance after it has happened. But in theater, the actor is the one who actually *gives* the play to the audience. Their performance is, of course, influenced by the director, but they are ultimately the vessel of delivery. Which is fascinating to me. I'm always interested to see what a director and editor have done with my work in film. In theater, i know, personally, what I might have done.
+johannes914 his french pronounciation is killing me,he should stick to english translation of the words wherever he could.persistently mispronounced every single word and phrase.
Yeah, I'm hip to the Bay Hate... don't like most of his films myself. But Bay is absolutely an auteur filmmaker. You can watch a Michael Bay film and know you're watching a Michael Bay film just by the feel of it. Regardless of what we think of him artistically, he has a undeniable style to his films.
Hi Filmmaker IQ , I would love u guys to make a video on history of productions house and their workings and their different conflicts i absolutely love the videos you post its very educational i would love if u did that.
Mon Tage Well I think any celebrity director could be considered auteurs: Quentin Tarantino always tops the list, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Kevin Smith, Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, Steven Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson, Terrence Malick. The Coen Brothers, Christopher Nolan, Woody Allen, Nicolas Winding Refn, David Lynch, Sam Mendes, Gieurmo Del Torro, Sofia Coppola, Peter Jackson, Danny Boyle, David O' Russell, Terry Gilliam.... I'm basically naming directors that have a bit of fame.... and if I left a favorite out - it's by no means intentional. But as we stated in the end of this lesson, there's a lot of problems with the auteur theory - mainly that the director doesn't work in a vacuum. And it's importance is starting to diminish substantially as we don't have a "studio system" - we have a unit production process where teams are assembled usually around one director. These teams create the signature style... so a DP working for Coen Bros. on one film may work with Sam Mendes on another - it's way more complicated than what auteur theory really allows.
Unless the director funds the entire project, studio films are investment vehicles expected to appeal to a mass audience and generate a return on the investors who fund the project. i.e. Blade Runner was a classic battle between book author, director, and studio footing the bill. Those with the money had no artistic interest in the outcome, they were simply worried about getting their money back via ticket sales. They are the ones who demanded the narration because they couldn't follow the story -- this is what happens when socially disconnected sociopaths with money are running the show.
Why can't that person be youTUBE? yes, I can do it. From my point of view the writer es the real auteur but sometimes the writer and director is the same. XD Well done John!!
Great video! Yeah, a lot of words mispronounced (some not even French) Actually in the early days of French cinema before the Cahiers de Cinema it was thought that when reproducing material such as books and plays the author of the film was not the director but rather the original author of the book or play. Until the Cahiers crowd stood up against that notion, and encouraged directors to take hold of the material. Andrew Sarris, like you mention, then took the French idea of Auteur and expanded upon it creating what the term is today. Also "mise en scene" is much more than just what you mentioned. "Mise en scene" is the look and feel of the scene. It involves everything from decor, costume and blocking, all of which the director has the final say on.
Yeah I think I was too simplistic in the explanation of Mise-en-Scene - incorporating what you mentioned but also letting scenes play out rather than tightly controlled cutting.
Filmmaker IQ Whenever I see that phrase Mise-en-Scene, I can't help thinking of a joke book of "Fractured French" that defined it as "There are mice in the river." (Chateau Briand meant "Your hat is on fire!") :D
This has to be one of the best channels on youtube. Thank you so much.
because of you i might be able to pass my film degree!
ikr!
I like Pauline Kael's take, as outlined here. The problem with hipster art, is it often becomes a reverb-chamber of a short list of acceptably cool styles. The best art is usually both innovative and appealing to the masses. The passage of time can be a great test of artistic merit.
You'd think that more artists would want their work to be seen by the masses.
"...while systematically butchering the pronunciation of several French words." Love it. / Really fascinating breakdown. As always, guys.
His french is sexy. Therefore 100% legit.
It's very interesting to watch this again after a year away. Again, I've primarily been a stage actor, but I'm trying to get into more screen roles. This year, I've been working on a film with a very strong vision from the director-writer (and probably editor). It was very interesting to me, though, how much input the DP has in this collaboration. Not wanting to be too big (always the theater actor's worry), I was constantly asking about framing, and it was usually the DP that answered me. He also gave me some acting tips (direction) that were more helpful than the those from the director - such as how much I can move, should I turn just a peck more to the right. He understood the characters and scenes as much as the "creator" (director), and their collaboration was fascinating to me. Which makes me wonder even more about the relationship between these two roles - in our film, the director had storyboarded everything, but it seemed the DP was making as many choices as possible, based on the original intent. (Side note: it's my first time working with green screen, compositing, miniatures, puppet-demons, as well as my first time attempt at some ADR - in French, a language I don't speak, and it was tough enough to do on set - in a couple days.) Thanks, again, John, for your wonderful insights!
I hope someone responsible for Filmmaker IQ reads this.. I subscribed about a minute in. Very nice, factual and down to earth, while still having enough graphics to make the points come across. It is so nice to see a channel, once in a while, that isn't just flashy fast-paced clickbait in video format. Pretty please do keep up the good work.
+Nils Rungholm Jensen Thanks - we read all the comments :)
I agree with you about the quality of this channel. But could you share an example of a clickbait flashy video?
John's passion and how well suited he is to make such presentations makes such a subject quite engaging.
Just wanted to say that I love your videos. I've been watching them for a long time now and they're great. Very explanatory, well edited, and of course chock-filled with great examples of both Film History and Theory. Hopefully you continue to produce them so I can continue to enjoy them for much time to come.
John, thank you for putting together such great lessons. I have used many of these to not only spur discussion in my high school film production course, but to inspire the upcoming generation of young filmmakers.
Awesome! We're working behind the scenes on some web applications that might be useful for classrooms, And of course, there's a lot of topics to be covered still - be sure to stay tuned.
This is the *only* YT channel that I'm willing to watch videos longer than a *few minutes*. Always entertaining and informative, thank you!
14:41 THANK YOU for discussing the myth that Tim Burton was the creative genius behind The Nightmare Before Christmas. I loved the movie, but I've always had a love-hate relationship with Burton, largely stemming from my feelings that one of his major claims to fame was truly someone else's work that he gave the idea to then slapped his name on.
When asked "So what do you do?" and the answer is "I make film" or "I am in the film business" one usually thinks of directors for they are the ones having to make all the crucial decisions and supervise everyone else's too. Consider making of a film just like the construction of the building. There is the person who pays for everything ,the one who makes sure everything is legal and paid for (producer), the architect who makes the initial drawings (writer), civil and mechanical engineers who work on those drawings (production planning team), the workers who carry out their orders ,while putting some of their own touch (technicians), the chief supervising engineer (director) who sometime is the architect himself and the materials or furniture that define what the building will look like (cast members). Changing just one of them the building will never be the same. So you see, making the building is a team's work but some people's work, but not all team members receive the same payment or credit.
An excellent study material . I take my hat off for each new lecture. And I hope that this invaluable guide will continue for a long time .. Cheers !!
Thanks again for your great work. This is really a high quality channel. I hope you get a lot more subscribers. This channel deserves it. Keep up the amazing work.
It's actually scary how much of a Paulette I was before even hearing about Pauline Kael.
That was very interesting, but my god, the pronunciation of those French words. I'm in pain right now.
Huh?
John, I am impressed,,, your French is on point. Don't know how many bloopers you went thru to get to the final cut, no matter, you sir are a wealth of knowledge!
Honestly, that notion of "no good or bad films only good or bad directors" is utter trash.
It's a bit simplistic for my taste, too. Movies are a collaborative effort and any number of things can make a bad movie. Although it's true in a sense that a director should be able to guide all of those pieces into one cohesive and hopefully entertaining piece but sometimes it falls through.
Uberslick basically all the crew are making the film. But only the director exists, everybody else simply doesn't exist. It's kinda author's dictatorship.
He's not saying that literally, its just a metaphor
This is so great, i literally learn more from you than from school.
i thoroughly enjoy this series
Kael has it right, and you have the best filmmaker channel on youtube, by far.
I love this channel so much.
Je prends l'examen final pour le cinéma français demain...facile à comprendre, très utile : merci !
+Oliver Jones Merci pour le commentaire et je suis désolé pour ma prononciation française :)
I didn´t know there was a term for this, but I understand the "theory". I know alot of people who won´t see a film or must see it just because of someone. Not necassary because of the director, it´s as mentioned in the end of the video maybe more of some of the cast for the casuals and some of the crew for the die hards like me. To be honest, there are alot of movies that I have watched "just because" this way, Harryhousen movies for starters.
Harryhausen
Great video, and break down, of a topic that many up and comers need to learn, to grow on they're journey to what ever they wish to master...
Thank you for this. Truly helpful.
Sadly, I got more information on this topic by watching this video than listening to 3 one-hour lectures at the best filmmaking degree course in Britain. Again, thank you.
In my opinion I believe that a director can only be an Auteur when he had a strong hand in the other aspects of film making e.g writing, story boarding, music etc.
Someone like Miyazaki would fit into this category as he does many roles in the film making process, even collaborating with Joe Hisashi on the music.
He or she. Women make films, too…
Who needs film school when you have filmmaker IQ!
My brain is blowing ....I'm so grateful for your research...thankyou so much
Great video, as always. Please don't stop making videos!
before watching this I had totally dismissed auteur theory as the work of self-important directors and clueless critics, but now I see it's merits in the context of it's history, thankyou.
Another great piece John! Keep them coming please!
Wes Anderson was distracting me with his style when I seen the skiing chase scene, from the movie 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' imposing his style to look like a scene from the puppet TV show Thunderbirds. That was the first idea that came to mind about a director style influence.
I hope the new site will come back soon. Facebook is fine and all but it's not the same.
forfluf We're getting closer for sure ;)
I know it's been a long time, but there's technical stuff that keeps breaking.
this was such pleasurable 17:37 minutes! I did not expect the end and embarrassingly, I teared up :) keep up the good work!
Thanks for the heads-up about you butchering the French language! Though you had some of them right, the majority was kind of gibberish to a French guy like me, but as you always write concepts and names, it was kinda funny to compare how we would pronounce it here and how you tried to do so there.
Great video, as always, and impressive archives too! Was that hard to find those early French films excerpts? ;)
thanks a ton!
I do a film education in The Netherlands and some of the things we already learned about. it's nice to know more details about it!
I understand what you mean when you describe early French silent film as Avant Garde, but to be considered Avant Garde would that not mean established methods and ideas would have to have be subverted or twisted? And with it being so early in the life of film as an art form were there already established methods and ideas to be experimented with?
+Paul Higgins good question! You must consider the historical context though. Un Chen Angelou came out in 1929 - that's 2 years after The Jazz Singer. In the States the film industry was really pretty established by the mid 1910s and a substantive export to Europe by the 20s. Avant Garde in this sense would be rejecting Hollywood industry styles for more experimental cutting and visual techniques.
Thanks, that's clearer to me now I didn't pay attention to the dates haha
great video !! i love how in the end you say something really encouraging !!! thanks for that !
God, I love this channel!
Great video, as always!
John Hash is superb. He is the rare man, who can produce confidence in one's heart as well as describes the history so well. Great.
I'm with Pauline Kael 100% on this one. Another great video, John.
Love the simplicity of this channel
Great once again, your french wasn't too bad ! ;)
Just : François = Fran-ss-ois
The "ç" means the "c" sounds like "ss", and not like "k".
Merci ! Great video !
Oh, come now! EVERYONE knows "The Big Bus" was the greatest film ever made! The greatest line ever spoken in the history of the cinema has to be; "I don't care what anyone says! I DID NOT eat one hundred and ten passengers! It was my co-driver, Benidx! I only ate a foot!" The depth of that statement alone could lead one to a life of inner reflection and enlightenment! See what I did there? My point is that the film stands on its own merits in the end. I love your channel!!!!
How in the hell dont you have hundreds of thousands of views or even millions? Great work...
Its true that more credit should to be given to the rest of the teem, with some films the director is mere management. For example, the later epics by David Lean ( Lawrence of Arabia, Dr Zhivago, Ryan's daughter) mostly resound the talents of the cinematographer and writer (Freddie young & Robert Bolt) more than Lean himself.
just rewatched these, still very good
Very informative
Hry brother, thst was a lot of work. Nicely done and thank you.
An absolutely fantastic video, pieced together well and great references.
Another good video! I liked the history part of this video
Stylo = Steelo lol great video
Great video!
One could argue that the communication to a team of people is what makes a great film. As you say in your excellent summary and history of the auteur theory the vision may come from many places not just the director. However, if you are unable to communicate and share that vision then the chances are the film will suffer.
This was a great film on a wonderful subject, thank you.
This seems to me not that hard to keep straight. You can talk about a film ONLY . . . or you can talk about a film AND its Director. They're two different conversations, each having its own standards. Don't confuse the two . . . and there's no conflict or contradiction.
+greenrate but can you really? Can you separate a novel from the author? Can you separate an actor from the performance?
Psycho gives us a good test case. We have two films, same script, same shots, but you have two completely different films.
John, you did again! Great work!!
Very good vidéo, as usual. Thank you. Merci à vous, monsieur Hess. ;-)
Another video I enjoyed watching. Thank you.
You need to set up an interview with Osborne or Mankiewicz on TCM for some film segments. :)
Thanks for not showing the slicing of the mule’s eye in UN CHIEN ANDALOU scene.
After suffering through 2 World Wars and Nazi occupation, the French were certainly entitled to some pleasant distractions
Like Sarris’ theory. Especially ‘distinguishable personality’
Pauline Kael acted like a professional Troll. Kael never made a film, but was convinced she knew how to make a ‘good’ film.
Hawks, Hitchcock, and Welles worked with their own tight knit group of actors and crew. Hawks, in an interview, said he would get good ideas from his crew on set whenever he encountered a scene that wasn’t working.
Thank you for very nice and cohesive comment on auteur theory. I´m grateful especially for the second part about Sarris and Kael, because it is not so well known (outside usa) - on the other hand the french story is little bit simplistic.
The problem with Truffaut + the rest of Cahiers was that they were too young to be the measure of things. The pamphlet - Certain tendency… was trying to provoke reaction attacking the best cinema + used the poor guys as Autant-Lara etc. (naming them „cinema of quality“) as a contrast to people as Bresson, Cocteau or others „darlings“ of Cahiers. But if you watch Truffaut´s movies since the late 60s you´ll see that there is not much of experimenting and he actually makes hommage to „metteur en scene“ in Day for Night (73), which has been famously criticezed by Godard.
Mr. Godard is other case - he was actually againts mise-en-scene even as a critic - not mentioning he was (and is) compeletely nuts and since the 70s almost unwatchable. Chabrol was actually making no experiments and all the time mainly crime stories as all the „cinema of quality“ guys did years before him - because there is huge tradition of crime cinema in France. Maybe the only guy who stuck with mise-en-scene was Rivette - but he was completely forgotten till the early 90s.
But these 5 guys (+Rohmer) were not the main strain of french cinema even during the hype of nouvelle vague in the early 60s - there are tons of directors that has been forgotten - actually beacause they make the Cahiers-nouvelle vague-point of view too complicated - thus skip them (I mean - Malle, Lelouch or Deville + many others).
Other problem with Cahiers is that there not much known about the criticism they caused in their time and rejective reactions as in case of revue Positif / Cahiers also went completely nuts during the 70s New Hollywood era - actually rejecting majority of movies produced in Hollywood that actually worshipped the cult of Cahiers. On the contrary they have been praised by Positif + Michel Ciment.
I pressume you´re read the Cahiers volumes translated by Hillier - and for myself I have to say that 70% that Cahiers wrote is utter rubbish - and auteur theory - at least in the classical sense as being created by Cahiers - is huge misunderstanding and is causing nowadays lot of damage for cinema history. I understand that it caused huge turmoil and changes in the thinking of many directors but in the essence it was (a) very superficial and with many logical gaps + (b) betrayed by the founding fathers as Truffaut
+Rudolf Schimera Thanks for you comment and adding to the French side!
thanks for the insight. I'm studying the french new wave in paris and the teachers warship the cahiers critics the new wave etc.
I personally love the godard's 60's films(I haven't seen any more recent ones) but what i appreciate is the technical aspect and innovative storytelling. But analyzing them in class is way too heavy in content... These teachers see a meaning in every detail of these films(especially godard) that in the end is too much.
And who is godard to make people think that cinema is finished and he is the only "cinéaste" left? ...Thats fucking depressing^^
Thank you, great as always.
Great video! subscribed :)
Brilliant as ever!
Another great video, very informative thx!
Camera Stylo.
Looks like there's too much Camera Toilet.
The really important thing that auteur theory brought us is the recognition of a movie as the effort and vision of a individual, many people steel dont know that is someone behind the camera
Excellent effort on pronouncing French words. Of course excellent details, I don't know how you are able to research all this and bring it across in a way that we can understand. Is this "auteur"? Keep it up.
Excellent work! Your lecture really demystifies several questions I had on auteur theory.
Is it possible to suggest a topic for the next video or is there a set curriculum? If so, could you guys do a video on the use of handheld cameras through the history of cinema?
12:05 I saw you holding back laughter there.
Anyway, did you know a few of your videos are being presented as a resource by my film history college professor? These are really good.
Good and informative video, but i noticed one mistake. Truffant wrote about "ceirtain tendency in french cinema" in 1954 and Andre Bazin wrote aboute "les politique des auteurs" in 1957
You´re always making great stuf man!!! :D
So the appearance of Truffaut in Spielberg's Close Encounters is quite interesting.
Thanks for this academic piece. It is enlightening for budding artists and craftsmen. I enjoy movies alot and aspire to be an author one day, this topic certainly puts art into perspective. Paulettes and Sarristes' thoughts were both important with both having their own merits. I especially liked how you tied it all up in the end. Good job and keep it up!
so should i go to film school or just watch all of filmmaker IQ's videos?
I wish this video was uploaded this time last week, when I was writing an essay about the auteur theory.
thank you sir for helping me with my A level film homework. Never thought Al from Al's Toy Barn would be such an important part of my life
Another very informative video - thank you! After just watching your take on acting (which, as an actor, is a good refresher), I've been through my social media thread, and there's a theater director friend who is constantly going on about the importance of the director in theater, which in my opinion is different than the importance of the director in film. I understand that, in film, a director's wishes will probably win out over a writer's, whereas, in theater, I think the writer is the "author" and the rest of us are interpretive artists. It's a fascinating idea, but I think I'm on the side with the Paulettes (and John's side - a lot of people have to work together to make a movie).
+Christopher Prentice +Christopher Prentice well in theater person with the final say in how a scene will be played is the actor. Whatever he or she does regardless of the writers or director's intention is how that performance is going to be that night. In a film, the final call is made by the director, if the actor didn't deliver it the way the director wanted, there can be another take. And then there's that whole camera-stylo thing we talked about in the Auteur video.
I do spend a lot of time thinking about the difference between theater and film. There's strangely a very big devide between the two mediums.
You're absolutely right. The difference between film and theater, and who might be "author" is my argument with my other friend. In film, there are many ways to "fix" an actor's performance after it has happened. But in theater, the actor is the one who actually *gives* the play to the audience. Their performance is, of course, influenced by the director, but they are ultimately the vessel of delivery. Which is fascinating to me. I'm always interested to see what a director and editor have done with my work in film. In theater, i know, personally, what I might have done.
Love it
Very nice how you tied it up with the question "why can't that person be you?" Nice bit of inspiration. Thanks as always for these great videos!
The "ç" in "François Truffaut" is pronounced like a "s". Great video anyway.
He did promise to butcher his French pronunciations!
rdecredico His pronunciation is not bad, anyway, across the video. Wish I could have a good US accent
+johannes914 his french pronounciation is killing me,he should stick to english translation of the words wherever he could.persistently mispronounced every single word and phrase.
Yeah, so you just did in 17,1/2 min. what some college professors spend a whole semester doing. Great job on this one.
Really appreciate this! Helped me so much for studying Fincher's work for A Level Film Studies.
so you're telling me that Michael Bay can be regarded as an auteur?
+Hambopro yes why not?
+Filmmaker IQ
Because he lacks technical competence.
No he doesn't. He is extremely technically competent.
Filmmaker IQ I have two words that disproves that statement: Transformers 2.
Yeah, I'm hip to the Bay Hate... don't like most of his films myself.
But Bay is absolutely an auteur filmmaker. You can watch a Michael Bay film and know you're watching a Michael Bay film just by the feel of it. Regardless of what we think of him artistically, he has a undeniable style to his films.
So informative
what a wonderful video, so sir to make it clear to me, can we consider you auteur?
Love ❤️
Could someone elaborate more on the interior meaning part Thanks!
In this context interior meaning is in reference to the author trying to say something about his or her own life. The same idea as an inside joke
Hi Filmmaker IQ , I would love u guys to make a video on history of productions house and their workings and their different conflicts i absolutely love the videos you post its very educational i would love if u did that.
Who would be considered a modern auteur? John posted a list of the classic auteur, but how about a list of modern auteur?
Mon Tage Well I think any celebrity director could be considered auteurs: Quentin Tarantino always tops the list, David Fincher, Wes Anderson, Kevin Smith, Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, Steven Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson, Terrence Malick. The Coen Brothers, Christopher Nolan, Woody Allen, Nicolas Winding Refn, David Lynch, Sam Mendes, Gieurmo Del Torro, Sofia Coppola, Peter Jackson, Danny Boyle, David O' Russell, Terry Gilliam....
I'm basically naming directors that have a bit of fame.... and if I left a favorite out - it's by no means intentional.
But as we stated in the end of this lesson, there's a lot of problems with the auteur theory - mainly that the director doesn't work in a vacuum. And it's importance is starting to diminish substantially as we don't have a "studio system" - we have a unit production process where teams are assembled usually around one director. These teams create the signature style... so a DP working for Coen Bros. on one film may work with Sam Mendes on another - it's way more complicated than what auteur theory really allows.
God i love this channel!
Unless the director funds the entire project, studio films are investment vehicles expected to appeal to a mass audience and generate a return on the investors who fund the project.
i.e. Blade Runner was a classic battle between book author, director, and studio footing the bill. Those with the money had no artistic interest in the outcome, they were simply worried about getting their money back via ticket sales. They are the ones who demanded the narration because they couldn't follow the story -- this is what happens when socially disconnected sociopaths with money are running the show.
Why can't that person be youTUBE? yes, I can do it.
From my point of view the writer es the real auteur but sometimes the writer and director is the same. XD Well done John!!
I love your videos so much.
Could someone plese explain by what Kael meant by Judge the artist by the movie not the movie by the artist
It means evaluate the artist by the output they create rather than evaluate the output by who created it. It's anti auteur theory.
Great video! Yeah, a lot of words mispronounced (some not even French) Actually in the early days of French cinema before the Cahiers de Cinema it was thought that when reproducing material such as books and plays the author of the film was not the director but rather the original author of the book or play. Until the Cahiers crowd stood up against that notion, and encouraged directors to take hold of the material. Andrew Sarris, like you mention, then took the French idea of Auteur and expanded upon it creating what the term is today. Also "mise en scene" is much more than just what you mentioned. "Mise en scene" is the look and feel of the scene. It involves everything from decor, costume and blocking, all of which the director has the final say on.
Yeah I think I was too simplistic in the explanation of Mise-en-Scene - incorporating what you mentioned but also letting scenes play out rather than tightly controlled cutting.
Filmmaker IQ Keep up the great work though! I always love watching the videos!
Filmmaker IQ Whenever I see that phrase Mise-en-Scene, I can't help thinking of a joke book of "Fractured French" that defined it as "There are mice in the river." (Chateau Briand meant "Your hat is on fire!") :D
Nice
how did he just pronounce Coraline .. im baffled