Which is abysmal since costume is often what causes movies to age particularly well and be particularly respected (at least enough to be a common axis of praise/criticism in a show)... As another woman creator (one who's trans), I'm sure you all do amazing work they just refuse to see as valuable because you're a woman doing some work related to clothing
A little nugget of info about Coppola: he got Nathan Winters blacklisted from Hollywood and tried to sue him. Why? He had the gall to send the director of Jeepers Creepers to prison for his unforgivable actions towards him when he was a child. I mean if Coppola wants to create a mythology for himself let's not forget that.
@@Camila-eb4lb Honestly, the amount of public and financial support Coppola gives that director makes me wonder if Jeepers Creepers dude has something on Coppola.
Black male screenwriter here. I'm used to being ignored and having no power. I'm not in a position like Haggis, Sorkin or Kauffman. I'm usually not allowed on set. The director takes over the script and the vision. Early in my career I lost any say during option and later at rewrites. But I'm a bit past that now. I'm usually involved up to shooting script. I've been allowed once to collaborate during that process. It's a thankless profession. You're often invisible and disposable. I still love it only because I love writing. Excellent video!
I think it’s obvious there is a trend away from valuing the script, especially in attempted blockbusters and it kills the film. I don’t think people (studios) get how much short-changing the time needed to get a script polished hampers the final product. They just think flashy action can make up for a thin script and I’ve never seen that work. Hollywood needs to think more of its writers if they want people to give time to what they’re doing (I’d say “care about their product” but I feel that’s asking too much.)
You're problem isn't the directors, its the bean counters who dictate what gets made and how similar to how Joss Whedon literally got shut out by Fox who proceeded to make changes to this 1992 Buffy The Vampire Slayer screenplay.
I'm sorry you get disrespected so much, it's a soul crushing Sisyphean task to become a writer or get staffed in any way and is made so much worse by you being in a marginalized group... for what it's worth, I'm sure you're an amazing screenwriter who isn't respected enough to even be given a shot, and I hope you continue trying to be a writer no matter what it takes and what they put you through, just because you deserve to eventually break through and other people like you deserve to get to see your work
As a black queer woman director, the amount of times I've been called "bossy" for doing the most minimal requirements of my job, in the calmest way humanly possible... Or, been replaced, as a writer and having my name removed because they want a white man to "take over" now that I've developed the piece. Thank you for this video. The more intersectional you are, the higher the bar.
I'm curious, is there any way to see your work. I have dreams of one day making movies, so I'm always consuming media from different creatives. Getting inspired and growing.
I think about this all the time when I think of my favorite movies, like Star Wars: A New Hope which was massively to the credit of the skill and vision of it's female editor, Marcia Lucas, George Lucas' then-wife; or American Psycho which had a female director (Mary Harron) and two female screenplay writers (Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner). These are CLASSIC, beloved pieces of cinema and yet the women involved are rarely mentioned; in the case of American Psycho (AP), for example, you NEVER hear someone say "Harron's American Psycho" the way we hear "Scorsese's Taxi Driver" or "Lucas' Star Wars" or "Kubrick's Clockwork Orange" or "Nolan's The Dark Knight." I think it would shock most fanboys to know AP was directed and written (the screenplay) by women even though they may claim it as their favorite movie. The DO know that it's based on a book written by Bret Easton Ellis though, because that is a fact that is highlighted repeatedly. I have watched countless analyses of AP because it's one of my favorite films, and there is rarely an analysis that includes interviews with Harron and Turner talking about the film, maybe never. They are rarely mentioned. Yet it is nearly impossible to watch an analysis of a film by one of 'the greats' without their input and perspective being all over the analysis, and without credit being given to them and their viewpoint almost constantly. I think this is starting to change, for instance, we often say "Gerwig's Barbie," but I think there's this idea that women just finally 'got gud' at directing and not a widespread understanding that women have always been here and are, in fact, very often heavily responsible for the genius of films that are regarded as both groundbreaking and foundational. There is also this idea that female artists make female art, but again with very little understanding that many films considered staples amongst men were shaped by women. And lastly, there is not enough attention paid to how ALL people involved in production can have a profound impact on the final product, though I think this too has started to change, at least amongst younger generations. I was thrilled to see Jordan Peele, when talking about his latest film Nope, discussing how he trusts his actors to know their character better than he does and so he trusts their instincts with how they want to deliver a line, change their lines, or change or influence what their character does or how they choose to portray them. He talks about film as an intensely collaborative process and acknowledges that the art is made better when a director makes space for everyone to have a hand in it. One of the many reasons he is one of the most exciting directors we've had in modern times! I feel like I've seen this, too, with Dev Patel talking about his beautifully brutal action movie Monkey Man. Despite Monkey Man being written, directed, and acted by Patel, and being his passion project that he has fought tooth and nail to realize for the last decade, he always speaks of all the ways everyone involved, down the accountant!, was heavily invested in the film and crucial to it even existing, much less being so incredible.
Only disagreement is with the point of a new hope. The editing was important but it’s common for fans to attribute every good thing about the original trilogy to anyone else except Lucas. Per Lucas’ admission about his success, he just got lucky. Every later idea he had was ass because his luck ran out.
Just to tack onto your first paragraph, some of the greatest film editors in Hollywood have been women! A few notable editors: Barbara McLean (collaborated on over two dozen films with Henry King), Dorothy Spencer (edited Stagecoach and My Darling Clementine), Anne Bauchens (worked in Hollywood over 40 years and edited Cleopatra), Anne Coates (edited Lawrence of Arabia and had a 60 year career in Hollywood), Thelma Schoonmaker (edited almost all of Scorsese's films), Sally Menke (edited most of Tarantino's films up until she passed away in 2010), and the most recent Academy Award winner for best film editing, Jennifer Lame (which she won for Oppenheimer)
nobody describes a film as "*director name*'s movie" when the director has only one famous/acclaimed film regardless of the gender. you just want to be a victim so much, for some reason. agnes varda, jane campion, chantal akerman, kathryn bigelow are well known women directors, but you for some reason want to claim the greatness of those who either have one well known/acclaimed film or for people that are NOT responsible for DIRECTING the film as if they are on the same level as a director with multiple great films, and somehow making it about gender. why don't these western wokelibs talk about non-english things to the same extent they talk about gender or race?
The myth of the genius director is still pretty much ingrained when it comes to video games. Most notable example is Hideo Kojima. Tetsuya Nomura, of Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy fame, even got the brunt of the blame for the changes in the story of Final Fantasy Remake, even though he's only the director for the game, with Kazushige Nojima (one of the writers of the original) & Motomu Toriyama being the main writing credits for the game.
We also need to point out that Steve McQueen, a black man from London, has made multiple critically acclaimed films and yet never gets mentioned when people talk about great modern directors.
If the guy made a Marvel film I can guarantee his name would be all over the place. Truth to be told its only those creatives who attach themselves to the big projects are the ones who names we see.
@@nickrustyson8124 not gonna lie, when I first saw Steve McQueen’s credit on hunger, I was confused because I was thinking, didn’t he die in 1980 (referring to the actor, Steve McQueen), but yeah, it’s just a coincidence he had the same name.
Semi related but I dated a guy who was in film school. His goal was to be a director and he always said he was super passionate about telling stories. Flash forward to around the end of our relationship and he had me writing world building for his college work (I was still in high school at the time) In the beginning I wanted to be helpful but it eventually hit me like a truck that I was allowing a whole white man take credit for my ideas😭 I’ll never understand how someone who worked with so many creative people managed to devalue artists on the daily. Some people just want the idea of fame and to sit on a chair with their name embroidered on the back ig🤷♂️
Two words; Larisa Shepitko. Her film was the first-EVER best picture winner, and I only heard her name a year ago. I'd seen and loved her films before, but never thought about who made them. She is now in my top 10 favorite Directors of all time, and she would have been in there sooner if she was given even a sliver of the name-recognition and notoriety that Chaplin, Kubrick, and Spielberg were given. Sad...
No her film wasn't the first best picture winner she was born over 10 years after the oscars were created and She is a soviet filmmaker the fact is soviet cinema is pretty much ignored by western audiences with only a couple exceptions and even then it is pretty niche.
@@rupertsmith5815 Yes. I was really confused. The first Oscar Best Picture winner was titled "Wings." Shepitko just also made a film with the same title decades later.
This was great. I’m glad you brought up Polly Platt. “The Last Picture Show” was inspired by book that she read. The costumes and makeup was decided by her. She scouted the locations. She said it should be black and white. She did much more than an Art Director does. She worked on four of his films, during the height of his career. After Bogdanovich and Platt stopped collaborating, his career nosedived. Hitchcock relied on his wife for her opinions even after she “retired.” She was the one who caught Janet Leigh taking a breath during that long closeup. It’s why there’s a sudden cut to the shower head. Dede Allen worked on so many classic films. She managed to make a comprehensible narrative of the The Breakfast Club when she took 5 hours of raw footage and edited it down to an hour and a half. Hughes took no part in the editing process. William Friedkin… I’ll just say he made two movies I love/like and he wouldn’t be able to use many of his methods today. As for Cooper, the failures in his films seems to be his need to be front and center. He needs better collaborators. A Star is Born” is pretty good but the movie focuses more Cooper’s character than the Star in the title. I don’t think “Maestro” was directed well. Cooper’s choices on how to construct the story bowdlerized Bernstein’s life story. He needed to spend six years writing a better script instead of practicing conducting.
@@iammraat3059 Well that might be close to a good analogy if the Beatles were a band no one knew much about. And if Spotify helped you write something similar to the original song and then helped you reinterpret it for a different medium. Well, this has been pedantic and all, but I’m bored. Take care.
@@CorinParkerCL yeah it was a silly thing to expect credits like this for 'recommending a book' while dismissing a person's entire body of work. Imagine thinking you have the high ground in this one. You take care too.
Another fantastic video! It reminds me of a quote from Peter Jackson's biography: "I have no desire for my name to become a brand. It kind of happens without you being able to control it, if you're lucky enough to make a successful film. Have a good look at the credits of The Lord of the Rings or King Kong. The one credit you will not see is "A Peter Jackson Film." I refused to allow that, and never will. Movies are collaborations, and I would never make that kind of possessive claim on such a collaborative piece of work." Whatever it might say on the posters, in reviews, who gets the awards, etc, how the director chooses to list themselves in the credits of the movie speaks volumes about how they see themselves. Ever since I read that quote, whenever I see a movie open with "A Film by [NAME]" it puts me off a little bit because it's such a selfish and narcissistic thing to say about something that required the effort of hundreds, if not thousands of people.
That's interesting to know that Peter Jackson was somewhat against the auteur theory, because film buffs and people who are hardcore fans of his films still talk about him in the same way. They still talk about him as if he's this "great man auteur" when he didn't actually believe in that stuff.
He's from New Zealand where we have a very anti "Tall Poppy" ethos. Sometimes it's good to shout about our talents or victories, but it's also smart to be humble & remember no one gets there 100% on their own.
"Ever since I read that quote, whenever I see a movie open with "A Film by [NAME]" it puts me off a little bit. What are you talking about? Go take a look at the Sight and Sound top 100 list. 99 percent of the films will have "A _______ Film." Yes, everyone recognizes film as a collaborative art form, yet it ultimately serves an individual vision. Cinema is at its best when it feels as though it's offering a window into someone's consciousness. In order to arrive at this result, the director's vision basically needs to permeate every facet of the film in some form. Granted, I would possibly agree if you are referring to normative cinema and weirdly, she largely focuses on mainstream adjacent directors. She kind of seems out of her depth.
I am a woman director and I’m actually filming my first short on Sunday. Wish me luck! It’s been so hard putting this production together, my finance and I but we are excited. My partner let me know the odds stacked against me in the film industry, not just as a person chasing a dream but as a woman of color who is disabled and disadvantaged. The chances are slim to none to break into the industry. Even if you have a great idea they will just try to buy it, and put someone else’s name on it. This is one of the best case scenarios for new filmmakers of creatives alike. It gets A lot worse.
Damn on those disadvantages, but good luck. It's been bothering me extremely recently how Hollywood has basically prevented disables and midgets from playing roles literally written for them. For example the last time I can recall midgets being in a movie or show was the Willow TV series. However here are all the roles for midgets I can think of that was written post Willow. Dungeons and Dragons 4 where the midget role went to Bradley Cooper using CGI to make him smaller. Wonka where the Oompa Loompa role went to Hugh Grant using CGI. Rings of Power where there's a crud ton of hobbit and dwarf roles and was a single one of them played by a midget? Like legit question. Now we have the upcoming Snow White movie where the dwarves are CGI. Like WTF Hollywood? This is totally reminding me of Hollywood's "blackface era" which is more the era where Hollywood would have roles written specifically for racial minorities, but Hollywood rather hire white dudes and put them in make up instead to play those roles.
22:25 I actually think you were right the first time. I interpreted it as, the threshold of what negative behaviour a person is allowed to get away with is lower for marginalised communities - probably still worth adding in that disclaimer to avoid confusion though :P
to this day i remember this one interview with terry gillian in which he complained that he couldnt get the funds for his dream project of making a don quijote movie. he then said that "oh, if i were a black woman i bet they would give me that money straight away". this was a few years ago but i still remember how absolutely baffled i was by that. i love the style of his movies, i love how grotesque and out of the ordinary they are (a reason why i fell in love with movies through tim burtons filmography). but reading that really showed to me that an artist can be really good and interesting, and also extremely stupid. besides, he did eventually get the money to make his don quijote movie. i didnt watch it, the summary sounded unappealing to me. i dont think anybody gave a damn about it either. i think that part of demythologizing auteur directors is to give more credit to production designers, directors of photography, sound designers and screenwriters (says the woman who wants to be a screenwriter). i have been saying for years that a director can only be as good as their writer, and a movie can only work visually with a good cinematographer. directors often dream so big, they are liable to become myopic. (also both the don quijote movie and megalopolis have adam driver as the protagonist. this doesnt mean anything i think, im just already biased against him)
Driver definitely has a knack for working with old directors on passion projects. Gilliam, Mann, Scorsese and now Coppola. He's a one man-auteur ticket.
Funny how this topic follows almost every artistic field: filmmaking, acting (how men are always praised for method acting even if that means creating hell for he rest), art (Picasso, no more word need), probably music and writing as well, i just lack examples. The genius (male) artist concept seems as a way to keep everything centered around men.
Women have had literally centuries to create great art in the same volume as men. There is no 'systemic oppression' (lol) stopping them from picking up a pen or paintbrush
Thought-provoking video. I’d never heard about auteur theory until now, but I think it’s a helpful perspective as to why directors or producers often get put on pedestals for a film. I think it’s human nature to want to believe in the divine genius of a single hero or independent idealist. But considering how many people go into making a film, it seems naive to give all the majority of credit to one or a few people. Since films are collaborative works, I’ve started think of them as puzzles. Each puzzle is different because each role of the crew takes a different chunk of creative control. It depends on the personalities and level of collaboration present on the project. Screenwriter(s)+ Director(s) + Producer(s)+ Editing team+ Composer + Sound Designer + Cinematographer + Actors(s) + Costume Designer(s) + Set Designer + etc. Sometimes the screenplay is adapted from a previous work. Sometimes the director, producer, or actor writes the screenplay. Sometimes directors welcome ad libs from their actors, and sometimes they don’t. It really depends. All these choices determine how much creative control a director has over the film’s vision. As someone who likes to write, I’m always curious about the screenplay and how closely or loosely adapted it is by the director and actors. Anyways, thanks for making this video. It gave me a lot to think about. By the way, what is the theory opposite to auteurship?
auteur theory doesn't put producers on pedestals, on the contrary, it is opposed to producers cinema, which is about making money, while auteur director is abour having a vision. and not every director is auteur
Unironically calling any director a “genius” is the first sign that someone does not understand film. It is a collaborative process in its entirety. It’s writers and producers and directors handing out the keys to their minds to hundreds of people, all of whom are then made responsible for executing the vision held in the director/producer/writer/cinematographers mind. The creative team ultimately has only two important jobs: to render their vision as clearly as possible so it can be easily shared with others and to make the entire crews job as easy and straightforward as possible. Any goal beyond that will not succeed if the first two are not seriously considered. I think that’s where auteur theory flames out and dies, the idea a complete control lay solely in the “director” as if half the crew isn’t holding up 90% of the weight of production. Also don’t forget how fucking annoying the studios and financiers are. Some of the directors are brilliant, but often times it’s inspite of their ego. It doesn’t matter who you pick and from what time period, the director gets most of the credit because a) why not and honestly speaking b) it’s easier for non-filmy people to get it. Also “film buffs” or whatever the fuck are some of the worst people to talk to about filmmaking. Try as they might, they have no appreciation for the fundamentals of film and seem more obsessed with looking and sounding cool than learning, understanding and empathizing with the process of filmmaking and film enjoying. Everything is subjective, don’t let some loser with 300 movies on letterboxd this year tell you otherwise.
Also I know for a fact a bunch of people who haven’t so much as touched a feminine film made before 1970 are gonna bring up Chantal Akerman and Agnes Varda despite not seeing a single film made by either.
@@purp82so true, people that think there's some kinda movie magic don't realise that there are so so many people involved. Like director doesn't just whip a film up outa nowhere 😂
I can assure plenty Kubrick's crew members kept working after he passed away, can you name any of their movies? their other masterpieces (*made without Kubrick)
@@mr.jack0039your just proving the point, his own film was able to be finished without him and the visions was fully realized without him but those names arent brought up. I dont understand your perspective, that people shouldnt widley recieve credit for the work they put into the project that u enjoy, from the way it sounds u like the movie, so why do u have a distaste for the people that helped finish it
I was just thinking of this the other day, the myth of the "genius director". So many factors go into making a great film, from the script to the acting to the cinematography, that to credit the success of a film to one person in disingenuous. Besides, those "genius directors" have directed their fair share of stinkers.
To be fair the days of great directors is long dead. It is all about the in Studio style and that sweat IP. Most of this directors never made a film that pulled in the type cash your studio IP film does today.
@@emmagrove6491 you realize that most good directors are heavily involved in all of that? there are also directors who do their own cineamotgraphy or who edit their own movies. Sometimes even make the music. You have people like Hong Sang-soo who pretty much do everything on their own films. Then you have people like Soderbergh who have to use aliases because they take on so many roles during the process that he can't be credited with his own name due to Guild rules. The director tells the cinematographer what he wants and they collaborate - and there are plenty of cinematographers who are seen as "auteurs" in their own right and who even go on to direct themselves (Sean Price Williams or Christopher Doyle are big examples). It's such an idiotic point. Directors are heavily involved in most if not sometimes every aspect of making the film. And nobody is pretending they are the only ones involved or responsible - it's just that their recognizable thematic patterns and stylistic approach is in many (probably even most) cases easily attributed to them.
I'm not judging your interest in his movies but he stole a lot of stuff from non-white directors. Inception for instance steals many things from Paprika, directed by Satoshi Kon. Just let you know, some of his stuff is not even original
[I'm still 14 minutes in so might come back and edit] I love this video! This approach of taking things that are quintessentially collective and making it about individuals is also something that pisses me off when people talk about History. Many school systems format history along these lines of singular great person leads to great event, which is extremely problematic because it gives us an incomplete history (and we are doomed to repeat it). In the movies/series world, I LOVE it when a DVD comes with people talking about every aspect of production (like the Game of Thrones DVDs that have stuff about linguistics, costumes, photography, location scouting even). Although auteur theory helped cinema gain prestige, it can be such a limiting way to look at a beautiful dimension of art.
I highly recommend "Maya Deren" she worked only in short film but her film "Meshes of The Afternoon" is truley one of the best films I've seen personally. Lois Weber is an amazing pioneer in film history, her film "Shoes" is just amazing, a bit messed up from being badly preserved but it depicts a woman in poverty trying to get new shoes with an unattentive and uncaring drunk father, its really amazing. From the era of Hollywood where auteurism was being adopted, there is Elaine May with her short lived film career, "The Heartbreak Kid" "Mikey and Nicky" "A New Leaf" and her later and last feature lenght directed film "Ishtar". All kf them had career set backs and werent appreciated until years even decades later but are amazing. An amazing female pioneer in french New Wave cinema is Agnes Varda, with "Black Panthers" being an amazing and one of my favorite documentaries and "Cleo from 5 to 7" being one of the best films out of the french new wave film movement.
these men are convinced that their cast are actually terrible actors and therefore their safety must be in jeopardy for them to give a good performance. it's really fucking weird and just pisses on all the work the actors have done to get to this point of 'prestige' filmmaking.
Exactly, like the way Hitchcock treated Tippi Hedren and Kubrick Shelly Duval, etc etc is awful on its face, but it’s also deeply insulting to them, because essentially they don’t trust them to be able to actually, you know, act. And when they don’t treat their male actors the same way well… it becomes very obviously why.
While i do agree that film is an extremly collaborative effort, a bad film could be made with a great production designer in the team, but a good film could not be made without a good directors(to some degree), and a great number of great films could not be made without an auteur. The only person i think can truly save a bad director is a great cinematographer
In class, we asked my film professor what he thought of "Megalopolis", and he said that people just don't understand "real cinema art". Art is a public service, and this is a philosophy that has existed since the Italian Renaissance. If you as the artist are the only person who can understand and/or appreciate your art when it is meant to be understood and appreciated by nearly anyone and everyone, you are doing something wrong, especially if you harm and disrespect others in the process of making said art.
It goes both ways. Most people are artistically illiterate and don't care to challenge themselves. You see the kinds of movies most people watch. On the other hand, if someone says something like that, they definitely need to take follow up questions and make a real argument for why this thing everyone thinks is pretentious trash is actually great.
what are you even talking about? because the general public has a distain for something does that discount the art, should any and all controversial pieces of art be forgotten because they are misunderstood. this is also so stupid because this suggests that all art has a one true meaning
Ah, so you are suggesting that we pander to the lowest common denominator. Got it. By your criteria, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Tarr, Akerman, Antonioni, etc were all doing something wrong because a large portion of viewers don't appreciate their art. What you need to keep in mind is that the average person lacks a certain amount of inculcation. It sounds elitist, sure, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
@@SallyMankus130 No, you're willfully misinterpreting this situation. Francis Ford Coppola didn't have his movie misunderstood by the unwashed masses. For 40 years, he spoke about his ideas with his peers in the film industry, his fellow directors, actors, producers he wanted to give him money. They all said, "this is crazy. it's not gonna work. you're gonna lose a ton of money." Those people were right. Industry specialists who had also made successful movie were right. Francis Ford Coppola was too huge of a narcissist to listen to experts here, and so he failed. If you hear the same response from dozens of people over decades, you need to listen.
I loved this video! Would you ever consider making a video about female directors? I'm a big fan of Julie Taymor, America Ferrara, Ava DuVernay, Emerld Fennell, and Anna Kendrick's directorial debut was phenomenal in my opinion. I'd love to learn more! Especially more women of color who have directed. I'd so appreciate a spotlight on them and their work and individual styles.
Naoko Yamada is brilliant. She's one of the great anime directors working right now. K-On!, A Silent Voice, and Liz and the Blue Bird are brilliant films.
Yes evil male geniuses when the objective quality of entertainment has dipped in almost every industry. There's a fine line between diversity and inclusion vs. affirmative action and equity.
I've lost count of how many comments online i've read of people talking about how abusive male Directors/Actors have been, saying: "Yes, he almost killed that woman, BUT...." No, there is no 'but'. Those men deserve to be called out, and rightfully so. Because every time we look past shitty behaviour from men, they'll turn around and do it again because, hey, they got away with it the first time so why not?
I'm a huge Kubrick fan and think his movies are excellent, I also think he was a tyrant on set and the roles of women in his movies are severely lacking, often being barely present as their own characters in his "canon" works. It's possible to like a work without idolising the people making it.
@@iammraat3059 I love Kubrick's films but Lolita is such a poor adaptation. Ironically that's the one story where giving more focus to the female characters misses the point of the narrative the book crafts where Dolores is endlessly talked about as Lolita but we barely get to actually see her as a human being because Humbert doesn't view her as one
While I understand your intentions behind the video and you listed some great examples, I really hope you would incorporate James Cameron into this video as well. He is known for cultivating an environment where mistreatments and abuses on cast and crews for the sake of creative vision was common place, such as Titanic and the Abyss.
In my opinion, two key factors ensure that the myth of the singular, genius author will not disappear-in fact, it may even grow stronger. The first factor is straightforward: every so often, someone emerges who truly embodies such a figure. Someone with enough vision, talent, experience, and determination to create something extraordinary-and then repeat that a second, third, and fourth time. While films are created by hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, there are artists whose vision and skills are so strong that the final outcome is genuinely elevated because of them. The second factor is more complex. In my view, it’s the fetishization of the individual and their success within American culture. This isn’t just about the myth of the author-it’s about the myth of success itself, the fantasy of “from rags to riches,” the *pursuit of happiness* interpreted as the pursuit of wealth and glory. US loves stories of individual triumph, and the figure of the genius director fits this longing perfectly. In my opinion, growing socio-economic disparities, rising inflation, social stratification, and polarization will only make this dream stronger, solidifying the image of the lone genius as an ever-more powerful icon.
Great points, and I think they're very important to mention. I'm sure you have, but if you're ever on a film set for an extended period of time you'll begin to realise just why the director is the most recognised of the crew. Not only because it's simpler for audiences to latch on to one name, and those of us with more niche interest to look at the production designers and prop makers; but also because the director is in charge of unifying the vision and collaborating with who they believe to be essential crew members. I'm sure we've all seen films where the director has not kept their crew in check and linked them back to the one central idea. Making movies is incredibly difficult, the fact they get made at all is amazing, directors with several films that are hits deserve the praise they get.
They'll behave this way while receiving high praise but I can't explain with confidence a very tame art piece I made about rainbow capitalism without being called "emotional" and "too involved to see clearly" in art school 😤
FFC isn't the male genius of cinema you perceive. He had a run of crap movies that strangled his infant movie studio in its crib. See: ONE FROM THE HEART. There's a reason he's been more known for his wine than for his movies for the last 30 years.
I don't know if it is an apt comparison. I'm not really read in either field, but this reminds me of sports teams - a few individuals being propped up in a group activity. It's hardly a strong comparison, as one masterful player can really make a game or team, but it's what I thought of. Perhaps the creation of the artistic genius is a natural process of how our brains work - doing the least amount of effort to create connections and relationships between things/people/topic. I believe the term is chunking. Reducing concepts and then grouping them together to form connections. It's a lot more difficult to remember a bunch of different people with their own contributions and reputations. Now me saying this does nothing to address literally anything about the misogyny or abuse or hard truths about the idea of the male genius. Just commenting for the sake of engagement.
it’s so disheartening even considering the option to pursue cinema as a career when you’re a woman or really when you’re anyone who believes in human rights before some sort of pursuit of tRuE aRt. when i started watching bertolucci and then realized the depth of the abuse that happened on the set of last tango in paris it made me kinda requestion everything, i don’t know if i want to dedicate my life to an industry that is so throughly fucked
Wanting to change an industry takes time and effort unfortunately, especially when one demographic holds the majority of power, money, and decision making. But it has to start somewhere, and I can understand how that kind of pressure is disheartening
I started to appreciate your channel a lot. It's so important this type of video essay to be available. I think this matter is even more problematic when you think they wanted to cut off from the Oscar the award of the technical equip, like those responsible for the soundtrack, editing etc.
The mythologizing of Scorcese, Spike Lee, Tarantino, Nolan, and yes, Coppola might really be the only way to market films that aren't already equipped with their own IP mythology nowadays. Save for Nolan (and The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, don't get me wrong) none of these big name directors have ever done a superhero franchise or really any franchises at all (unless you consider The Godfather trilogy a franchise, which I don't because it's the continuation of one basic story). Without a "name" attached to original stories or adaptations of more obscure works of fiction, large studios are less willing than ever to fund these projects. Would Killers of the Flower Moon even be heard of or made at all if not for Martin Scorcese's name on the credits?
The answer is a stronge no for Flower Moon, hell if Martin wasn't tied to it it would be the talk of the town for worst movie because now people are pointing out the little details such as CGI in Native Americans, CGI cows, not focusing on the creation of the FBI, the fact DeNiro and Leo are double the age their characters are suppose to be, the telling the audience the theme of the film at the end. Etc But since Marty directed it and he made Goodfellas it must be ground breaking cinema and great for Native Americans even tho it's just Native Torture Porn for white people to feel good about
Counterpoint: The Wachowski Sisters' Speed Racer, Sam Mendes' Skyfall & Spectre, Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi, Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi's Shin Godzilla, anything Phil Lord & Chris Miller make.
I really don't get the audacity of some of these people. Apocalypse now is one of my favourite movies but it's so obvious that Coppola's involvement wasn't the only thing going for it. What about the actual source material, heart of darkness?? Or perhaps Marlon Brando's performance?? I'm no filmmaker but I always appreciated David Lynch's approach to art. He always tries to remind us that art shouldn't be born out of suffering.
I've only seen a bit of this but I already completely agree. People always prefer the "myths" of someone they admire, as opposed to the truth. Often great artists have deep flaws and people have to confront that instead of excusing bad behavior. I'm in no way saying that films by certain directors who have behaved badly should be canceled. I'm saying people need to accept hearing hard truths about people they admire and call them out on it.
Auteur theory was more a theory for advertisers and promoters than filmmakers themselves anyway. In short, you create a brand around yourself as a filmmaker that people come to accept and expect a certain level of quality, and then you deliver on that implicit promise. You don't need to be a genius to be a brand. Just a competent enough executor of whatever story you're telling. If that grants one the freedom to make their own projects and be successful, then neat. But auteur theory was never about the directors themselves, just their public images. The fact that Steven Spielberg and co latched onto it in the 70s speaks more to those directors being more unknown than the preceding generation and needing to burnish their reputation by claiming that they were all geniuses and wouldn't it make sense for producers and studios to make all the money in the world and get all the accolades at the same time by employing the resident geniuses to get it? Hence the advertising part of "auteur" theory which in my opinion makes more sense than Michael Bay being a genius for racist robots. Pretty much imagine Coppola jumping around like Michael Scott from the office but instead of repeating "parkour!", he's saying "auteur!" whenever he's on set making a movie.
I still need to watch more films by women, people of color, queer people, etc. but I wholeheartedly agree that people like Kubrick, Spielberg, and especially Nolan are wildly overrated. They're good filmmakers (particularly Kubrick) but I find it difficult to connect to their characters and don't find their films as emotionally impactful as I would hope based on the monumental praise they get. I'll say I am still a sucker for Scorsese despite his problematic traits, but I am trying to expand my horizons
Kasi Lemmons directed the 1997 film Eve's Bayou. It's fantastic Southern Gothic film perfect for Halloween or even summer. And yet she's not talked about or given the amazing opportunities men are. Sucks!
I know that Bojack is referenced visually throughout the episode a few times but this feels like watching an episode of girl croosh podcast with Diane Nguyen. Also I feel like I cannot say this anywhere else; Spielberg is Drake of the movie industry. By that I don’t mean that he is a pdf file, that side of Drake is more personified by Tarantino. I mean he is much faster at recognizing what is going to be popular in the coming seasons and attaching himself to it and using it to add onto his ever-growing die-hard fanbase. Until the fanbase implodes eventually.
It's shocking how little women are held in the same high regard as their male contemporaries despite a lot of them being amazing directors in their own right. On a side note: The Wachowski Sisters, Naoko Yamada, Celine Sciamma, and Lynne Ramsay are prime female auteurs.
The fact that people let Coppola's mythology influence their reviews is hilarious. It's 45 years since Apocalypse now and Coppola has done numbers of films since then, none of which even touch the scale of what he put in the 70s with some just horrible or having awful casting or some major issues.
Like his last notable movie was Dracula and that was in the 90s and that came out the same year as Godfather 3 which is a piece of shit, and then he followed those two with Jack (Probably if not then whatever he made in between is just unnoticeable) and Jack is what I expect from a Problem Child or Look Who Talking director
even his 70's films are not THAT good. the godfather is the most overrated film of all time. apocalypse now is very impressive, but at the same time it's obvious that certain aspects of the film didn't work the way they were supposed to work. i haven't seen the conversation, so idk if it's really that good or not. honestly francis ford coppola is the most mid of the directors that are considered the greatest of all time. yasujiro ozu would be the second place, he literally made the same film multiple times in the 50s-60s. tokyo story is the second most overrated film of all time, it's just a ripoff of "make way for tomorrow" and "late spring"
on the plus side one of the reasons auteur and mythologising happen in theatre, opera, cinema, is because they could just lie. these days most things can be checked far more easily
I also want to add that it was Marcia Lucas who helped edit and shaped the mess that George Lucas made with Star Wars into something that people could actually watch -- specifically, she edited it so that people actually cheered for Han when he came back to help Luke at that final scene. Of course, after the divorce, her contribution was entirely played down.
A glance at front covers of my film collection shows auteurship is frequent, but not where I expected. Directors names absent on Casablanca, The Godfather, Chinatown, Paris Texas, Dr Strangelove, Blade Runner, Annie Hall, Apocalypse Now, Moonlight and Godfather Pt 2. Directors and cast on Vertigo, Breathless, A Matter of Life and Death, City Lights, It Happened One Night, No Country for Old Men and The Piano. Director sole attribution on La Regle du Jeu, Ran, Solaris, Tokyo Story, Hana-Bi, L' Armee des Ombres, Spirited Away, Chungking Express, Alice in the Cities and Schindler's List. Director possessive on Citizen Kane, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Spirited Away and Rashomon; and director possessive dominant in FELLINI 8 1/2
Older fandom days were interesting too in the aspect of not idealizing the director and finding the other aspects of the film such as the writers and set designers as just concrete forms of canon. queer people fans, for example, often would over ride what the director said to see if maybe the writers/actors had hinted at something, or maybe the color coordinator purposely made the background pride flag colors. Thus we'd create fan art, fanfics, theories based off the validity of other people opinions and how they affected the end product of the film.
Thank you for this video. The amount of times film bros around me gave me the stare and became dead silence because I said out loud that I don't like Scorsese and despise Tarantino, or I do not saw one movie of Polanski... Then they tried to tell me that I misunderstand "Cinema" because of course they did. The way they always give these directors not just the benefit of the doubt but the whole mythology without any logic or criticism is pretty tiring. What they able to see if the director is new or a woman or POC they close their eyes to all flaws if it comes from a "legendary director". Same with method actors vs "problematic" actresses.
You are just making your personal psychological issues other people's problem. There is objectivity, eat trash in your own time. But if someone has a different opinion than you then listen to it.
@@iammraat3059 I saw multiple movies from Scorsese and Tarantino and I have multiple problems with both. If you were the side of objectivity you shouldn't bring personal insults into a cultural argument. You could just argue about the subject. I did not said that you have to agree with me. I just have a different opinion than yours. You should hear your own advice about that.
To play devil's advocate for a second, directors get all the credit for great films because they risk the blame for bad films. Every time a director makes a film, man or woman, they are risking their talent and their career. If it flops, that can seriously impede their chances of getting another film made. Actors also catch some of the risk, but the rest of the crew mostly move on unscathed to other projects. Secondly, most of the so-called auteur films in classical sense (meaning one person writing and directing a personally inflected project) are an act of immense personal will. If you spend years of your life polishing a screenplay, finding producers, raising a budget, spending sleepless nights planning the shoot, and then spending weeks or months on set being a leader and having to answer a dozen questions a minute from all your actors and HODs before spending months in the editing room trying to get a project over the finish line, you better believe that you're gonna want to own that above-the-line "A film by....." credit. Secondly, Coppola, despite all of his flaws as human and as a director, is actually known to be one of the most collaborative directors in the business. He is as far from a Fritz Lang-style tyrant with a megaphone as one can be. Part of the reason why so many of his films go over schedule and over budget is because he allows so many people, especially actors, into his creative process. He likes to find scenes and evolve the screenplay as he goes. Malick is another director who works in thw same experimental and open-ended way but he doesn't get nearly the same level of vitriol. And, it begs to be said, Coppola self-funded Megalopolis so this accusation that he's wasting time and money is a moot point. He's signing all the checks, so he can take all the time he wants, and because he spent 40 years trying to get Megalopolis onto the big screen, it's his damn right to call it Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis. Finally, it is a damn shame that we have had such a shortage of female directors get the opportunity to create great work. But the hegemony of the auteur theory does not preclude women from becoming great directors in the same way that he have had so many great male directors. Agnes Varda, Larisa Shepitko, Sofia Coppola, Jane Campion, Lynne Ramsey, Kathryn Bigalow, Chantel Akerman and many others are 100% auteurs in the classical sense and I look forward to seeing many more women get to make films at every production scale.
Directors historically are usually a bit more hands off, especially in TV (they will just pull some one in for maybe 4 episodes or a dedicated arc). Directors do now produce the product as well. TV does have the show runner, who isn't necessarily the creator (especially on the very few long-running series like Power Rangers, frankly a move to New Zealand after the 10th season and 4 distinct ownership eras works to that favor. Although there was one person who had the job in all for eras- Judd "Chip" Lynn. He and Jackie Marchand are probably the writing staff with the most credits for a majority of series existence- wouldn't be surprised if there are suit actors or miscellaneous crew who were in almost all of the 20 seasons shot in New Zealand)
The shining is literally focused on the commercial trivialization of domestic abuse via *to the moon jannicceee* violent clown husband tv stereotypes. In what universe would someone like Kubrick not try to bring those dynamics directly and literally to his set(or at least spread myths about it after the fact)
I just stumbled onto your video randomly and listened in rapt attention to the whole thing. Very well done and very interesting. Just subscribed and I’ll be checking out more content.
Y'know it's kind of ironic because I recently read an article were Tarantino was calling out the Hunger Games for being a rip off of Battle Royle only for him to do something similar with his own films
@@Largentina. yeah I know objectively stealing a premise is worse but I just think it's funny that he's against the general idea of stealing but then does it himself even if it's in a smaller scale sort of way
@@awhimsyreader9015 if you knew abt tarantino youd know you're *meant* to catch the references in his films. He doesn't steal to try to say he came up with it himself. Its an homage to earlier cinema
@@vilkristproductions6772 Absolutely. Plus, he would rave about the movies he just paid homage to endlessly in the accompanying promo tour and REALLY wants you to watch them. I mean, Tarantino has a lot of problems, but let's not invent some for cheap gotchas, alright?
Nolan is not a 'fantastic artist'. You're absolutely spot on that many 'auteurs' do not deserve the reverence they receive from the 'film bros', which is mostly unthinking bullshit.
He’s definitely not the GOAT as film bros sees him as, but he does have his moment from time to time. I also noticed you on another video commenting that he’s a terrible filmmaker, which I agree in some aspects and disagree in others - curious to hear your view on Nolan’s weaknesses and strengths as a filmmaker. That being said I do agree with your comment on Auteurism and how it contributes to uncritical fanboyism, which is indeed bullshit.
I attribute a lot of issues with modern filmaking with 3 main things. The Red Scare successfully purging all left leaning people out of hollywood and making sure it still hasn't covered. The second would be the Wallstreet influences of the 80's and their franchise model of production. Third would be the federal government completely redsuing to take any responsibility for regulating any and allowing the likes of Disney and others control and commodify every aspect of the industry. I will say that I LOVED Megalopolis however. I don't have any particular fondness for Coppola but I will say I found every frame to be comepletely metaphorical to include the time control not literally be freezing time. In a world where few original film get made it was refreshing. I don't know if it's Tik Tok but media literacy is abysmal right now. Hopefully films like Megalopsis can help people be exposed to odd interpretations let alone basic ones.
Thoughts on Chantal Akerman (an auteur) filming a long explicit sex scene starring herself and her actress in "Je, tu, il, elle"? Would you call that abuse?
"your artistic process is worth more than time, money of other people" Megalopolis was funded by Coppola. By his OWN money. Surely he can do whatever he wants with his own money, right?
Directors are to film like Priests are to churches like Politicians are to public servants. Narcissists are attracted to positions of power and social capital that will help them not just have access to new targets but keep them safe while openly causing harm, loads of open secrets and get out of jail free cards. I hold a firm belief that there are things in life you can only want if there is something wrong with you. And yes this goes to the majority of institutions of power, like academia or conglomerates or the police. Big money sports, things like K-pop training, modelling. Hollywood and Broadway have this too. They are the kinds of places that sell suffering (of the self or imposed on others) as aspirational. And that's why abusive people thrive, they have so many people primed to be taken advantage of who WANT that sh.t because it makes them feel worthy. Cult sh.t
good video, i agree with what you said about films working crew to death while they get shit pay and really no artistic credit. in your last point about cooper, i think people will tolerate a lot if they think someone has talent, i.e. the film is good enough. i think the reason why he gets clowned is because of the perceived difference in his ambition vs his actual output. also i think writers are pretty under appreciated not just in film but in tv and other entertainment, most people know nothing about the writers of a lot of their favourite works
Fantastic video, thanks for making it! I'm definitely subscribing. I especially appreciate you pointing out that Nolan is overrated, because holy shit is he ever. But film bros just lose their minds at the thought. See, it's not that Oppenheimer is tedious, it's that we don't understand Nolan's genius! And don't get me wrong, I think he's a good director and I really like some of his films, but I just don't get the hype that he receives and how film bros just fall over each other to praise him (and to berate those who don't think he's that good).
Bro you know it’s way harder to disseminate a particular cinematic vision to the hundreds of artists and craftsmen involved with ur production than it is to fuckinh per se be the only person writing ur own prose novel. This fractured design process puts more responsibility on an *auteur*’s shoulders not less
Which isn’t to say that say Isabella Rossellini or Laura dern are any less intelligent or talented than David lynch, their distinct work lives in that film too and makes it more than the script
The "genius director" aka overrated white dude is basically just the creative version of the Hollywood "A List" actor. These are not people who are any better or talented then everyone else in film and TV. On the contrary the "A list" actors I'll argue are even worse than many "mid tier" actors. These are just Hollywood's hand selected choices on who they want to push down your throat as being "the best". The reasons can vary, but ultimately it comes down to these are the people the higher ups in Hollywood (CEOs, execs, high powered agencies, etc) has on a leash and they invested tons of money in. Also because these are the hand selected people Hollywood wants you to think is "the best", same Hollywood also basically gatekeeps on how gets to reach that level of fame and keep the majority of creators and actors away from that "A list" spot.
@@Anton-i2o I actually never really thought it through. I do know I'm going to have to look at all directors from everywhere and have a feeling at least someone from Japan should be mentioned.
I would argue that films that are more truly collaborative are better films than those controlled so completely by one person. Kill Bill is the ONLY one of these films I've ever watched more than once, because none of them are what I would call good enough to watch again. I think films genuinely suffer from auture mentality.
Yeah, I do not think that Tarantino’s footfetish is a problem… because half of all art is porn. And I don’t mean literal porn, I mean fetishes, eroticism, sexual subtext (or text) and it’s ok. Let people have their sexual content in art. And I’m not saying that Tarantino is perfect and innocent, fck him, fck all the tyrants on set. I’m saying that fetish content in art is not the problem.
Like, have you seen the clay scene in “ghost”? It’s like pure porn. AND THATS OK. Or if we’re talking about women directors: the “finger in the armpit” scene in “portrait of a lady on fire”
Photography can capture a single moment so perfectly. Many great film directors are photographers... they capture a series of moving moments. There is intrinsic beauty to each and every shot they produce. It is what cinephiles crave... the beauty of the photography of the moving image. Which is partly why cinema is the greatest art form. It binds each sense... the eye, the ear and the heart into one whole experience. Yet most, if not all of cinema fails as a complete entity. Every great film masters one or two aspects of the art form...but falls short in the others. Pushing away your own nostalgia, or sense of self-worth because of your relationship to it. Each film is only cherished because of a collection, of single fragmentary moments. The cinephiles love of cinema... is the love of something implicitly imperfect.
I really enjoyed this topic. The continuation of putting these big name directors on these magnificent pedestals is one of the major irks I have with the entertainment industry, especially when it comes to awards season. And I say this a a big Spielberg fan.
Whenever ive had criticisms of jodorowsky theres always one film bro that will spend hours trying to argue with me that I "just dont get film," yet their opinions are always a carbon copy of someone else's and they cant expand further. Liking a film thats outside of the mainstream doesn't mean youre deep, especially if you dont have your own original opinion on it. Edit to add: the amout of film bro trolls in the comments 😂 that regurgitate the same talking points ive heard for years just shows me how many people still dont have their own original thoughts or criticisms on some topics
Yes, yes ,yes on this video. As both a movie fan and maker, people like Kubrick Spielberg, Nolan, etc are held up as near gods in that community. But most of these gods have shaky pedestals. Apart from his well-documented bullying of Shelley Duvall and misogynist attitude to female characters (Clockwork Orange is of the worst examples), there's also the way Kubrick treated his long time assistant (the late) Leon Vitali. Vitali essentially gave up his acting career to do everything Kubrick wanted, and was sometimes berated badly for it. In the excellent Filmworker documentary, there's a sad moment when Vitali is shown walking visitors around a prestigious Kubrick exhibition...even though he wasn't invited to be part of said exhibition. Kubrick's family essentially abandoned Vitali after the director died. He suffered serious mental and physical health issues because of it too. People like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still get lauded today as creative geniuses, despite their shady/awful behaviour. Yes, 'Manhattan' has one of the most beautiful openings of any movie in history...but Woody Allen didn't film it (Gordon Willis did), he didn't write or play 'Rhapsody in Blue', he didn't directed those folk on the streets, etc (just random New Yorkers), or even edit it...yet he gets credited as the sole auteur. The moment Allen's voiceover starts on that opening sequence and then segue ways into that yucky bar scene, 'Manhattan' is over for me. Coppola hasn't made a truly memorable film since 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' IMHO. Yet he still thinks he's living his 'rebel' life in the seventies, when he did direct some true masterpieces. But The Godfather was written by Mario Puzo, acted by Brando, Pacino, etc, photographed by (again) Gordon Willis...Coppola didn't do any of that. The very last moment of that movie is almost a metaphor for Coppola himself...the egotistical, manipulative monster Michael being fawned over by his lackeys, whilst his wife has the door shut on her. I will watch Megaflopolis on streaming some time, when I'm in a silly mood. Coppola's support of fellow director/child abuser Victor Salva and his helping to supress Salva's victims is what really puts me off him. I don't think, from what I've seen and heard, that Christopher Nolan is an awful person, yet his ego seems to be sky high. His die-hard fans don't help and are probably the most intense film bros out there...no, Tenet isn't a mess, it's just intended to be that way mortals! I found it telling that after the awards success of Oppenheimer (good, but too long and ponderous), Nolan had Tenet re-released...so we can see what a misunderstood masterpiece it really was. Yes, there are some great Christopher Nolan directed movies, but he's also made some flawed, pretentious and unwatchable stuff (The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar, Tenet). Spielberg seems to be fairly blemish free, though like Coppola, hasn't made anything truly memorable in decades. I do remember reading that he was rather cold towards Verna Fields, the editor of 'Jaws', after that movie was released. I don't think he liked the fact that her skilful editing really saved that movie...and this parallels how George Lucas was towards his ex-wife with 'Star Wars' - another 70s blockbuster that was saved in the editing room. But it was Spielberg and Lucas who would be lauded as the movie brat kings, not Verna and Marsha. Terry Gilliam, another self-proclaimed genius that directed some great movies in the past, but like Coppola, now lives in this vacuum where he bitches about being a rebel to the system-yet still wants Hollywood stars to appear in his movies. Don't get me started on his idiotic rants about pro-nouns and 'wokeism' (which is weird, considering he appeared in a Wachowski Sisters' movie and has praised them too), and then there's his opinion of 'Me Too' (Ellen Barkin had something to say about that). He's living on past glories and this rebel genius auteur schtick. Tarantino, a man who has shamelessly ripped off other movies, lives in a 70s time warp, moans about digital technology (despite allowing Netflix to show his films), and now spends most of his time dissing other filmmakers. I remember watching the documentary QT8 years back, and there are two moments where it appears folk (Tarantino's collaborators and friends) are really trying to distance him from both Harvey Weinstein and what happened to Uma Thurman. Tarantino himself is notable by his absence. I found these rather bizarre and oddly slotted into what's otherwise meant to be a documentary about the movies. Yes, then there's his foot fetish thing and the 'playful' choking of Diane Kruger. While Neil Gaiman is not a movie director, his own recent, alleged behaviour towards female fans/employees wouldn't be out of place in this video either. When these men are pampered, pandered to and lauded for so long, then abuses of power absolutely happen. Gods only stay gods when we allow them unconditional power.
"A Clockwork Orange" was about awful behavior though. And how people/societies/movie audiences can be manipulated into accepting it. "Film Worker" is great! The Kubrick family had no say who got invited to that exhibition in Los Angeles. They were not involved. Vitali actually helped finish "Eyes Wide Shut", Kubrick died just a week after submitting his first draft so to speak.
In art community , most of the art graduate are women , but when it comes to making in market and museum , it is being dominated by men artists ..they are declared as genius
I’m in film school right now, and it’s so annoying how most people in my class support only American filmmakers all of them man, i hate when the film discussion only apply to USA
I would disagree re: Dede Allen was famous as an editor; maybe it’s a more recent thing, but Polly Platt is known about, and accorded so much reverence that Peter Bogdanovich ironically is becoming ‘underrated’; Julia Phillips, a producer along with her husband in New Hollywood (of The Sting; Taxi Driver) has always been acknowledged as an instrumental figure.
i dont think guys who think Tarantino is the greatest director have watched that many non-american, non-mainstream films. or even his inspo. makes the "suffering for great art" bs sound even more silly.
“Men don’t watch films directed by women.” Not unless they’re unaware it was (ex. American Psycho, where all irony is lost on them).
I work in costume which is a female dominated department. We genuinely get treated like a nuisance.
Which is abysmal since costume is often what causes movies to age particularly well and be particularly respected (at least enough to be a common axis of praise/criticism in a show)... As another woman creator (one who's trans), I'm sure you all do amazing work they just refuse to see as valuable because you're a woman doing some work related to clothing
A little nugget of info about Coppola: he got Nathan Winters blacklisted from Hollywood and tried to sue him. Why? He had the gall to send the director of Jeepers Creepers to prison for his unforgivable actions towards him when he was a child.
I mean if Coppola wants to create a mythology for himself let's not forget that.
nathans story makes me sick. the more i think about what coppola said to victor salva, the more i feel disgusted by him.
@@Camila-eb4lb Honestly, the amount of public and financial support Coppola gives that director makes me wonder if Jeepers Creepers dude has something on Coppola.
I dont understand who is what from this?
Black male screenwriter here. I'm used to being ignored and having no power. I'm not in a position like Haggis, Sorkin or Kauffman. I'm usually not allowed on set. The director takes over the script and the vision. Early in my career I lost any say during option and later at rewrites. But I'm a bit past that now. I'm usually involved up to shooting script. I've been allowed once to collaborate during that process. It's a thankless profession. You're often invisible and disposable. I still love it only because I love writing. Excellent video!
Most screenwriters are barred from set regardless of identity. Don't forget that black and brown men are patriarchal the same way white men are.
I think it’s obvious there is a trend away from valuing the script, especially in attempted blockbusters and it kills the film. I don’t think people (studios) get how much short-changing the time needed to get a script polished hampers the final product. They just think flashy action can make up for a thin script and I’ve never seen that work. Hollywood needs to think more of its writers if they want people to give time to what they’re doing (I’d say “care about their product” but I feel that’s asking too much.)
You're problem isn't the directors, its the bean counters who dictate what gets made and how similar to how Joss Whedon literally got shut out by Fox who proceeded to make changes to this 1992 Buffy The Vampire Slayer screenplay.
I'm sorry you get disrespected so much, it's a soul crushing Sisyphean task to become a writer or get staffed in any way and is made so much worse by you being in a marginalized group... for what it's worth, I'm sure you're an amazing screenwriter who isn't respected enough to even be given a shot, and I hope you continue trying to be a writer no matter what it takes and what they put you through, just because you deserve to eventually break through and other people like you deserve to get to see your work
As a black queer woman director, the amount of times I've been called "bossy" for doing the most minimal requirements of my job, in the calmest way humanly possible... Or, been replaced, as a writer and having my name removed because they want a white man to "take over" now that I've developed the piece. Thank you for this video. The more intersectional you are, the higher the bar.
Yikes.
😭 yet men can throw fits and treat everyone badly on set and are seen as GREAT for doing so
@@stuckkt5533 Ugh.
This is pretty much the case for any woman in a male dominated field. And it is complete horse sh!t!
I'm curious, is there any way to see your work. I have dreams of one day making movies, so I'm always consuming media from different creatives. Getting inspired and growing.
I think about this all the time when I think of my favorite movies, like Star Wars: A New Hope which was massively to the credit of the skill and vision of it's female editor, Marcia Lucas, George Lucas' then-wife; or American Psycho which had a female director (Mary Harron) and two female screenplay writers (Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner). These are CLASSIC, beloved pieces of cinema and yet the women involved are rarely mentioned; in the case of American Psycho (AP), for example, you NEVER hear someone say "Harron's American Psycho" the way we hear "Scorsese's Taxi Driver" or "Lucas' Star Wars" or "Kubrick's Clockwork Orange" or "Nolan's The Dark Knight."
I think it would shock most fanboys to know AP was directed and written (the screenplay) by women even though they may claim it as their favorite movie. The DO know that it's based on a book written by Bret Easton Ellis though, because that is a fact that is highlighted repeatedly. I have watched countless analyses of AP because it's one of my favorite films, and there is rarely an analysis that includes interviews with Harron and Turner talking about the film, maybe never. They are rarely mentioned. Yet it is nearly impossible to watch an analysis of a film by one of 'the greats' without their input and perspective being all over the analysis, and without credit being given to them and their viewpoint almost constantly.
I think this is starting to change, for instance, we often say "Gerwig's Barbie," but I think there's this idea that women just finally 'got gud' at directing and not a widespread understanding that women have always been here and are, in fact, very often heavily responsible for the genius of films that are regarded as both groundbreaking and foundational. There is also this idea that female artists make female art, but again with very little understanding that many films considered staples amongst men were shaped by women.
And lastly, there is not enough attention paid to how ALL people involved in production can have a profound impact on the final product, though I think this too has started to change, at least amongst younger generations. I was thrilled to see Jordan Peele, when talking about his latest film Nope, discussing how he trusts his actors to know their character better than he does and so he trusts their instincts with how they want to deliver a line, change their lines, or change or influence what their character does or how they choose to portray them. He talks about film as an intensely collaborative process and acknowledges that the art is made better when a director makes space for everyone to have a hand in it. One of the many reasons he is one of the most exciting directors we've had in modern times! I feel like I've seen this, too, with Dev Patel talking about his beautifully brutal action movie Monkey Man. Despite Monkey Man being written, directed, and acted by Patel, and being his passion project that he has fought tooth and nail to realize for the last decade, he always speaks of all the ways everyone involved, down the accountant!, was heavily invested in the film and crucial to it even existing, much less being so incredible.
Only disagreement is with the point of a new hope. The editing was important but it’s common for fans to attribute every good thing about the original trilogy to anyone else except Lucas. Per Lucas’ admission about his success, he just got lucky. Every later idea he had was ass because his luck ran out.
Just to tack onto your first paragraph, some of the greatest film editors in Hollywood have been women! A few notable editors: Barbara McLean (collaborated on over two dozen films with Henry King), Dorothy Spencer (edited Stagecoach and My Darling Clementine), Anne Bauchens (worked in Hollywood over 40 years and edited Cleopatra), Anne Coates (edited Lawrence of Arabia and had a 60 year career in Hollywood), Thelma Schoonmaker (edited almost all of Scorsese's films), Sally Menke (edited most of Tarantino's films up until she passed away in 2010), and the most recent Academy Award winner for best film editing, Jennifer Lame (which she won for Oppenheimer)
nobody describes a film as "*director name*'s movie" when the director has only one famous/acclaimed film regardless of the gender. you just want to be a victim so much, for some reason. agnes varda, jane campion, chantal akerman, kathryn bigelow are well known women directors, but you for some reason want to claim the greatness of those who either have one well known/acclaimed film or for people that are NOT responsible for DIRECTING the film as if they are on the same level as a director with multiple great films, and somehow making it about gender. why don't these western wokelibs talk about non-english things to the same extent they talk about gender or race?
@@jeanivanjohnsonim telling you these plebs don't even know films outside of the united states
The myth of the genius director is still pretty much ingrained when it comes to video games. Most notable example is Hideo Kojima. Tetsuya Nomura, of Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy fame, even got the brunt of the blame for the changes in the story of Final Fantasy Remake, even though he's only the director for the game, with Kazushige Nojima (one of the writers of the original) & Motomu Toriyama being the main writing credits for the game.
We also need to point out that Steve McQueen, a black man from London, has made multiple critically acclaimed films and yet never gets mentioned when people talk about great modern directors.
And one of his films did win Best Picture!
@@user-kb2ti4zo3q Hunger, Shame, 12 Years a Slave, Widows, and Small Axe.
I haven’t seen any of them but I’ve heard loads of good things.
Though him sharing names with the 1960s actor doesn't help
If the guy made a Marvel film I can guarantee his name would be all over the place. Truth to be told its only those creatives who attach themselves to the big projects are the ones who names we see.
@@nickrustyson8124 not gonna lie, when I first saw Steve McQueen’s credit on hunger, I was confused because I was thinking, didn’t he die in 1980 (referring to the actor, Steve McQueen), but yeah, it’s just a coincidence he had the same name.
Semi related but I dated a guy who was in film school. His goal was to be a director and he always said he was super passionate about telling stories. Flash forward to around the end of our relationship and he had me writing world building for his college work (I was still in high school at the time) In the beginning I wanted to be helpful but it eventually hit me like a truck that I was allowing a whole white man take credit for my ideas😭 I’ll never understand how someone who worked with so many creative people managed to devalue artists on the daily. Some people just want the idea of fame and to sit on a chair with their name embroidered on the back ig🤷♂️
So many red flags
not the college boyfriend in high school 😭 i just know that guy mustve been a total piece of shit...
Two words; Larisa Shepitko. Her film was the first-EVER best picture winner, and I only heard her name a year ago. I'd seen and loved her films before, but never thought about who made them. She is now in my top 10 favorite Directors of all time, and she would have been in there sooner if she was given even a sliver of the name-recognition and notoriety that Chaplin, Kubrick, and Spielberg were given. Sad...
She's very well known in Russia. Foreign language films won't be as well known in the Anglosphere.
@@Anton-i2o You're right. But she's definitely got a small cult-audience over here.
@@billysobolik For sure!
No her film wasn't the first best picture winner she was born over 10 years after the oscars were created
and She is a soviet filmmaker the fact is soviet cinema is pretty much ignored by western audiences with only a couple exceptions and even then it is pretty niche.
@@rupertsmith5815 Yes. I was really confused. The first Oscar Best Picture winner was titled "Wings." Shepitko just also made a film with the same title decades later.
This was great.
I’m glad you brought up Polly Platt. “The Last Picture Show” was inspired by book that she read. The costumes and makeup was decided by her. She scouted the locations. She said it should be black and white. She did much more than an Art Director does. She worked on four of his films, during the height of his career. After Bogdanovich and Platt stopped collaborating, his career nosedived.
Hitchcock relied on his wife for her opinions even after she “retired.” She was the one who caught Janet Leigh taking a breath during that long closeup. It’s why there’s a sudden cut to the shower head.
Dede Allen worked on so many classic films. She managed to make a comprehensible narrative of the The Breakfast Club when she took 5 hours of raw footage and edited it down to an hour and a half. Hughes took no part in the editing process.
William Friedkin… I’ll just say he made two movies I love/like and he wouldn’t be able to use many of his methods today.
As for Cooper, the failures in his films seems to be his need to be front and center. He needs better collaborators. A Star is Born” is pretty good but the movie focuses more Cooper’s character than the Star in the title. I don’t think “Maestro” was directed well. Cooper’s choices on how to construct the story bowdlerized Bernstein’s life story. He needed to spend six years writing a better script instead of practicing conducting.
"Book she read" bro just give up already
@@iammraat3059 She introduced Bogdanovich to material he wasn’t aware of. Sorry if my phrasing bothers you so. But you do you, Bro.
@@CorinParkerCL I should credit Spotify recommender for recommending me the Beatles when I cover one of their songs
@@iammraat3059 Well that might be close to a good analogy if the Beatles were a band no one knew much about. And if Spotify helped you write something similar to the original song and then helped you reinterpret it for a different medium. Well, this has been pedantic and all, but I’m bored. Take care.
@@CorinParkerCL yeah it was a silly thing to expect credits like this for 'recommending a book' while dismissing a person's entire body of work. Imagine thinking you have the high ground in this one. You take care too.
Another fantastic video! It reminds me of a quote from Peter Jackson's biography:
"I have no desire for my name to become a brand. It kind of happens without you being able to control it, if you're lucky enough to make a successful film. Have a good look at the credits of The Lord of the Rings or King Kong. The one credit you will not see is "A Peter Jackson Film." I refused to allow that, and never will. Movies are collaborations, and I would never make that kind of possessive claim on such a collaborative piece of work."
Whatever it might say on the posters, in reviews, who gets the awards, etc, how the director chooses to list themselves in the credits of the movie speaks volumes about how they see themselves.
Ever since I read that quote, whenever I see a movie open with "A Film by [NAME]" it puts me off a little bit because it's such a selfish and narcissistic thing to say about something that required the effort of hundreds, if not thousands of people.
That's interesting to know that Peter Jackson was somewhat against the auteur theory, because film buffs and people who are hardcore fans of his films still talk about him in the same way. They still talk about him as if he's this "great man auteur" when he didn't actually believe in that stuff.
!!!! preach
He's from New Zealand where we have a very anti "Tall Poppy" ethos. Sometimes it's good to shout about our talents or victories, but it's also smart to be humble & remember no one gets there 100% on their own.
"Ever since I read that quote, whenever I see a movie open with "A Film by [NAME]" it puts me off a little bit.
What are you talking about? Go take a look at the Sight and Sound top 100 list. 99 percent of the films will have "A _______ Film." Yes, everyone recognizes film as a collaborative art form, yet it ultimately serves an individual vision. Cinema is at its best when it feels as though it's offering a window into someone's consciousness. In order to arrive at this result, the director's vision basically needs to permeate every facet of the film in some form. Granted, I would possibly agree if you are referring to normative cinema and weirdly, she largely focuses on mainstream adjacent directors. She kind of seems out of her depth.
Zack Snyder took it to the next level pulling off calling a Justice League movie "Zack Snyder's Justice League".
I am a woman director and I’m actually filming my first short on Sunday. Wish me luck! It’s been so hard putting this production together, my finance and I but we are excited. My partner let me know the odds stacked against me in the film industry, not just as a person chasing a dream but as a woman of color who is disabled and disadvantaged. The chances are slim to none to break into the industry. Even if you have a great idea they will just try to buy it, and put someone else’s name on it. This is one of the best case scenarios for new filmmakers of creatives alike. It gets A lot worse.
good luck with your first short!!
I don't care about your gender. Anyone who wants to bear the burden of directing is better than me! Best thoughts for your struggle.
Damn on those disadvantages, but good luck. It's been bothering me extremely recently how Hollywood has basically prevented disables and midgets from playing roles literally written for them. For example the last time I can recall midgets being in a movie or show was the Willow TV series. However here are all the roles for midgets I can think of that was written post Willow. Dungeons and Dragons 4 where the midget role went to Bradley Cooper using CGI to make him smaller. Wonka where the Oompa Loompa role went to Hugh Grant using CGI. Rings of Power where there's a crud ton of hobbit and dwarf roles and was a single one of them played by a midget? Like legit question. Now we have the upcoming Snow White movie where the dwarves are CGI. Like WTF Hollywood? This is totally reminding me of Hollywood's "blackface era" which is more the era where Hollywood would have roles written specifically for racial minorities, but Hollywood rather hire white dudes and put them in make up instead to play those roles.
Good luck and congrats! Hope to see it
The matrix getting this macho treatment and then the creator coming out as a trans women is peak moment
22:25 I actually think you were right the first time. I interpreted it as, the threshold of what negative behaviour a person is allowed to get away with is lower for marginalised communities - probably still worth adding in that disclaimer to avoid confusion though :P
damn i think i got wrapped up and confused myself but thank you king :)
to this day i remember this one interview with terry gillian in which he complained that he couldnt get the funds for his dream project of making a don quijote movie. he then said that "oh, if i were a black woman i bet they would give me that money straight away". this was a few years ago but i still remember how absolutely baffled i was by that. i love the style of his movies, i love how grotesque and out of the ordinary they are (a reason why i fell in love with movies through tim burtons filmography). but reading that really showed to me that an artist can be really good and interesting, and also extremely stupid. besides, he did eventually get the money to make his don quijote movie. i didnt watch it, the summary sounded unappealing to me. i dont think anybody gave a damn about it either.
i think that part of demythologizing auteur directors is to give more credit to production designers, directors of photography, sound designers and screenwriters (says the woman who wants to be a screenwriter). i have been saying for years that a director can only be as good as their writer, and a movie can only work visually with a good cinematographer. directors often dream so big, they are liable to become myopic.
(also both the don quijote movie and megalopolis have adam driver as the protagonist. this doesnt mean anything i think, im just already biased against him)
Driver definitely has a knack for working with old directors on passion projects. Gilliam, Mann, Scorsese and now Coppola. He's a one man-auteur ticket.
Dude everybody has said dumb shit before, and to be honest he said it in a funny way.
@@Robert-d3m9c oh piss off
My professor taught me about one of the greatest filmmakers ever Agnès Varda. These days I always rave about ava duvernay and it false on deaf ears.
Funny how this topic follows almost every artistic field: filmmaking, acting (how men are always praised for method acting even if that means creating hell for he rest), art (Picasso, no more word need), probably music and writing as well, i just lack examples.
The genius (male) artist concept seems as a way to keep everything centered around men.
Or maybe, they just make great art, regardless of their character.
@@avidfather1864being dense on purpose okay we get it
@@el972Not him writing something comprehensive and you writing a teenage-like response.
What's up with Picasso? What did he do?
Women have had literally centuries to create great art in the same volume as men. There is no 'systemic oppression' (lol) stopping them from picking up a pen or paintbrush
Thought-provoking video. I’d never heard about auteur theory until now, but I think it’s a helpful perspective as to why directors or producers often get put on pedestals for a film. I think it’s human nature to want to believe in the divine genius of a single hero or independent idealist. But considering how many people go into making a film, it seems naive to give all the majority of credit to one or a few people. Since films are collaborative works, I’ve started think of them as puzzles. Each puzzle is different because each role of the crew takes a different chunk of creative control. It depends on the personalities and level of collaboration present on the project. Screenwriter(s)+ Director(s) + Producer(s)+ Editing team+ Composer + Sound Designer + Cinematographer + Actors(s) + Costume Designer(s) + Set Designer + etc. Sometimes the screenplay is adapted from a previous work. Sometimes the director, producer, or actor writes the screenplay. Sometimes directors welcome ad libs from their actors, and sometimes they don’t. It really depends. All these choices determine how much creative control a director has over the film’s vision. As someone who likes to write, I’m always curious about the screenplay and how closely or loosely adapted it is by the director and actors. Anyways, thanks for making this video. It gave me a lot to think about. By the way, what is the theory opposite to auteurship?
auteur theory doesn't put producers on pedestals, on the contrary, it is opposed to producers cinema, which is about making money, while auteur director is abour having a vision. and not every director is auteur
Unironically calling any director a “genius” is the first sign that someone does not understand film. It is a collaborative process in its entirety. It’s writers and producers and directors handing out the keys to their minds to hundreds of people, all of whom are then made responsible for executing the vision held in the director/producer/writer/cinematographers mind. The creative team ultimately has only two important jobs: to render their vision as clearly as possible so it can be easily shared with others and to make the entire crews job as easy and straightforward as possible. Any goal beyond that will not succeed if the first two are not seriously considered. I think that’s where auteur theory flames out and dies, the idea a complete control lay solely in the “director” as if half the crew isn’t holding up 90% of the weight of production. Also don’t forget how fucking annoying the studios and financiers are. Some of the directors are brilliant, but often times it’s inspite of their ego. It doesn’t matter who you pick and from what time period, the director gets most of the credit because a) why not and honestly speaking b) it’s easier for non-filmy people to get it.
Also “film buffs” or whatever the fuck are some of the worst people to talk to about filmmaking. Try as they might, they have no appreciation for the fundamentals of film and seem more obsessed with looking and sounding cool than learning, understanding and empathizing with the process of filmmaking and film enjoying. Everything is subjective, don’t let some loser with 300 movies on letterboxd this year tell you otherwise.
Also I know for a fact a bunch of people who haven’t so much as touched a feminine film made before 1970 are gonna bring up Chantal Akerman and Agnes Varda despite not seeing a single film made by either.
@@purp82so true, people that think there's some kinda movie magic don't realise that there are so so many people involved. Like director doesn't just whip a film up outa nowhere 😂
I can assure plenty Kubrick's crew members kept working after he passed away, can you name any of their movies? their other masterpieces (*made without Kubrick)
@@mr.jack0039 they won't answer. Let them believe how 'collaborative' this process is 🥴
@@mr.jack0039your just proving the point, his own film was able to be finished without him and the visions was fully realized without him but those names arent brought up. I dont understand your perspective, that people shouldnt widley recieve credit for the work they put into the project that u enjoy, from the way it sounds u like the movie, so why do u have a distaste for the people that helped finish it
i hope you send this to your former professor, they love to know when students make cool shit like this
I was just thinking of this the other day, the myth of the "genius director". So many factors go into making a great film, from the script to the acting to the cinematography, that to credit the success of a film to one person in disingenuous. Besides, those "genius directors" have directed their fair share of stinkers.
To be fair the days of great directors is long dead. It is all about the in Studio style and that sweat IP. Most of this directors never made a film that pulled in the type cash your studio IP film does today.
@@emmagrove6491 you realize that most good directors are heavily involved in all of that? there are also directors who do their own cineamotgraphy or who edit their own movies. Sometimes even make the music. You have people like Hong Sang-soo who pretty much do everything on their own films. Then you have people like Soderbergh who have to use aliases because they take on so many roles during the process that he can't be credited with his own name due to Guild rules. The director tells the cinematographer what he wants and they collaborate - and there are plenty of cinematographers who are seen as "auteurs" in their own right and who even go on to direct themselves (Sean Price Williams or Christopher Doyle are big examples).
It's such an idiotic point. Directors are heavily involved in most if not sometimes every aspect of making the film. And nobody is pretending they are the only ones involved or responsible - it's just that their recognizable thematic patterns and stylistic approach is in many (probably even most) cases easily attributed to them.
@@nikomillerpeople don't want to listen to reality
LMAO the edit of obi-wan and Christopher Nolan was so good 😭
shoutout Elowen the editor!! that was all from her beautiful brain
Girl why didn’t you put this out two days ago before I wasted time and money to see megalopolis ahah finished it thinking what the fuck was that
i’m so sorry, at least we have each other for support x
I'm a Nolan girl, but it's because I love big dumb movies, and his biggest dumbest movies are just a treat to watch. I love tenet, what a show
Tenet is definitely Nolan’s most “big dumb movie brain duh huh” movie and I kinda dig it. Ludwig Goransson’s score carried this movie.
I'm not judging your interest in his movies but he stole a lot of stuff from non-white directors. Inception for instance steals many things from Paprika, directed by Satoshi Kon. Just let you know, some of his stuff is not even original
Dumb?
@@SweetTG80124 stop talking about things as ripoffs. It is a homage and inspiration.
@@SweetTG80124 yeah
“Hi, I’m Elle and you’re watching Elle Literacy” is so fucking cute! I don’t recall this being your intro but I hope it is here to stay
tee hee hee thank you maybe i'll do it for every vid from now on
@@elleliteracy Hi, just like to know what your top 5 favourite movies are xx
[I'm still 14 minutes in so might come back and edit] I love this video! This approach of taking things that are quintessentially collective and making it about individuals is also something that pisses me off when people talk about History. Many school systems format history along these lines of singular great person leads to great event, which is extremely problematic because it gives us an incomplete history (and we are doomed to repeat it). In the movies/series world, I LOVE it when a DVD comes with people talking about every aspect of production (like the Game of Thrones DVDs that have stuff about linguistics, costumes, photography, location scouting even). Although auteur theory helped cinema gain prestige, it can be such a limiting way to look at a beautiful dimension of art.
I highly recommend "Maya Deren" she worked only in short film but her film "Meshes of The Afternoon" is truley one of the best films I've seen personally. Lois Weber is an amazing pioneer in film history, her film "Shoes" is just amazing, a bit messed up from being badly preserved but it depicts a woman in poverty trying to get new shoes with an unattentive and uncaring drunk father, its really amazing. From the era of Hollywood where auteurism was being adopted, there is Elaine May with her short lived film career, "The Heartbreak Kid" "Mikey and Nicky" "A New Leaf" and her later and last feature lenght directed film "Ishtar". All kf them had career set backs and werent appreciated until years even decades later but are amazing. An amazing female pioneer in french New Wave cinema is Agnes Varda, with "Black Panthers" being an amazing and one of my favorite documentaries and "Cleo from 5 to 7" being one of the best films out of the french new wave film movement.
these men are convinced that their cast are actually terrible actors and therefore their safety must be in jeopardy for them to give a good performance. it's really fucking weird and just pisses on all the work the actors have done to get to this point of 'prestige' filmmaking.
Exactly, like the way Hitchcock treated Tippi Hedren and Kubrick Shelly Duval, etc etc is awful on its face, but it’s also deeply insulting to them, because essentially they don’t trust them to be able to actually, you know, act. And when they don’t treat their male actors the same way well… it becomes very obviously why.
@@ruthiebee11 Delusions of grandeur, these fellas have.
While i do agree that film is an extremly collaborative effort, a bad film could be made with a great production designer in the team, but a good film could not be made without a good directors(to some degree), and a great number of great films could not be made without an auteur. The only person i think can truly save a bad director is a great cinematographer
In class, we asked my film professor what he thought of "Megalopolis", and he said that people just don't understand "real cinema art". Art is a public service, and this is a philosophy that has existed since the Italian Renaissance. If you as the artist are the only person who can understand and/or appreciate your art when it is meant to be understood and appreciated by nearly anyone and everyone, you are doing something wrong, especially if you harm and disrespect others in the process of making said art.
It goes both ways. Most people are artistically illiterate and don't care to challenge themselves. You see the kinds of movies most people watch. On the other hand, if someone says something like that, they definitely need to take follow up questions and make a real argument for why this thing everyone thinks is pretentious trash is actually great.
“Art is a public service” go fuck yourself, the only thing you owe anybody in this world is your sincerity
what are you even talking about? because the general public has a distain for something does that discount the art, should any and all controversial pieces of art be forgotten because they are misunderstood. this is also so stupid because this suggests that all art has a one true meaning
Ah, so you are suggesting that we pander to the lowest common denominator. Got it. By your criteria, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Tarr, Akerman, Antonioni, etc were all doing something wrong because a large portion of viewers don't appreciate their art. What you need to keep in mind is that the average person lacks a certain amount of inculcation. It sounds elitist, sure, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
@@SallyMankus130 No, you're willfully misinterpreting this situation. Francis Ford Coppola didn't have his movie misunderstood by the unwashed masses. For 40 years, he spoke about his ideas with his peers in the film industry, his fellow directors, actors, producers he wanted to give him money. They all said, "this is crazy. it's not gonna work. you're gonna lose a ton of money." Those people were right. Industry specialists who had also made successful movie were right. Francis Ford Coppola was too huge of a narcissist to listen to experts here, and so he failed. If you hear the same response from dozens of people over decades, you need to listen.
I loved this video! Would you ever consider making a video about female directors?
I'm a big fan of Julie Taymor, America Ferrara, Ava DuVernay, Emerld Fennell, and Anna Kendrick's directorial debut was phenomenal in my opinion.
I'd love to learn more! Especially more women of color who have directed. I'd so appreciate a spotlight on them and their work and individual styles.
Naoko Yamada is brilliant. She's one of the great anime directors working right now. K-On!, A Silent Voice, and Liz and the Blue Bird are brilliant films.
Yes evil male geniuses when the objective quality of entertainment has dipped in almost every industry. There's a fine line between diversity and inclusion vs. affirmative action and equity.
I clicked like the moment you said "And I got tired" when describing these types of conversations in your intro
I've lost count of how many comments online i've read of people talking about how abusive male Directors/Actors have been, saying: "Yes, he almost killed that woman, BUT...."
No, there is no 'but'. Those men deserve to be called out, and rightfully so. Because every time we look past shitty behaviour from men, they'll turn around and do it again because, hey, they got away with it the first time so why not?
*cough*Paul W.S. Anderson*cough*
I'm a huge Kubrick fan and think his movies are excellent, I also think he was a tyrant on set and the roles of women in his movies are severely lacking, often being barely present as their own characters in his "canon" works. It's possible to like a work without idolising the people making it.
I don't think you have watched Lolita
@@iammraat3059 I love Kubrick's films but Lolita is such a poor adaptation. Ironically that's the one story where giving more focus to the female characters misses the point of the narrative the book crafts where Dolores is endlessly talked about as Lolita but we barely get to actually see her as a human being because Humbert doesn't view her as one
@@plugshirt1762 that's just your opinion man. It's a riot and even Nabokov was a fan
While I understand your intentions behind the video and you listed some great examples, I really hope you would incorporate James Cameron into this video as well. He is known for cultivating an environment where mistreatments and abuses on cast and crews for the sake of creative vision was common place, such as Titanic and the Abyss.
In my opinion, two key factors ensure that the myth of the singular, genius author will not disappear-in fact, it may even grow stronger.
The first factor is straightforward: every so often, someone emerges who truly embodies such a figure. Someone with enough vision, talent, experience, and determination to create something extraordinary-and then repeat that a second, third, and fourth time. While films are created by hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, there are artists whose vision and skills are so strong that the final outcome is genuinely elevated because of them.
The second factor is more complex. In my view, it’s the fetishization of the individual and their success within American culture. This isn’t just about the myth of the author-it’s about the myth of success itself, the fantasy of “from rags to riches,” the *pursuit of happiness* interpreted as the pursuit of wealth and glory. US loves stories of individual triumph, and the figure of the genius director fits this longing perfectly.
In my opinion, growing socio-economic disparities, rising inflation, social stratification, and polarization will only make this dream stronger, solidifying the image of the lone genius as an ever-more powerful icon.
Great points, and I think they're very important to mention. I'm sure you have, but if you're ever on a film set for an extended period of time you'll begin to realise just why the director is the most recognised of the crew. Not only because it's simpler for audiences to latch on to one name, and those of us with more niche interest to look at the production designers and prop makers; but also because the director is in charge of unifying the vision and collaborating with who they believe to be essential crew members.
I'm sure we've all seen films where the director has not kept their crew in check and linked them back to the one central idea. Making movies is incredibly difficult, the fact they get made at all is amazing, directors with several films that are hits deserve the praise they get.
They'll behave this way while receiving high praise but I can't explain with confidence a very tame art piece I made about rainbow capitalism without being called "emotional" and "too involved to see clearly" in art school 😤
FFC isn't the male genius of cinema you perceive. He had a run of crap movies that strangled his infant movie studio in its crib. See: ONE FROM THE HEART.
There's a reason he's been more known for his wine than for his movies for the last 30 years.
I don't know if it is an apt comparison. I'm not really read in either field, but this reminds me of sports teams - a few individuals being propped up in a group activity. It's hardly a strong comparison, as one masterful player can really make a game or team, but it's what I thought of. Perhaps the creation of the artistic genius is a natural process of how our brains work - doing the least amount of effort to create connections and relationships between things/people/topic. I believe the term is chunking. Reducing concepts and then grouping them together to form connections. It's a lot more difficult to remember a bunch of different people with their own contributions and reputations. Now me saying this does nothing to address literally anything about the misogyny or abuse or hard truths about the idea of the male genius. Just commenting for the sake of engagement.
it’s so disheartening even considering the option to pursue cinema as a career when you’re a woman or really when you’re anyone who believes in human rights before some sort of pursuit of tRuE aRt. when i started watching bertolucci and then realized the depth of the abuse that happened on the set of last tango in paris it made me kinda requestion everything, i don’t know if i want to dedicate my life to an industry that is so throughly fucked
Wanting to change an industry takes time and effort unfortunately, especially when one demographic holds the majority of power, money, and decision making. But it has to start somewhere, and I can understand how that kind of pressure is disheartening
I started to appreciate your channel a lot. It's so important this type of video essay to be available. I think this matter is even more problematic when you think they wanted to cut off from the Oscar the award of the technical equip, like those responsible for the soundtrack, editing etc.
The mythologizing of Scorcese, Spike Lee, Tarantino, Nolan, and yes, Coppola might really be the only way to market films that aren't already equipped with their own IP mythology nowadays. Save for Nolan (and The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, don't get me wrong) none of these big name directors have ever done a superhero franchise or really any franchises at all (unless you consider The Godfather trilogy a franchise, which I don't because it's the continuation of one basic story). Without a "name" attached to original stories or adaptations of more obscure works of fiction, large studios are less willing than ever to fund these projects. Would Killers of the Flower Moon even be heard of or made at all if not for Martin Scorcese's name on the credits?
The answer is a stronge no for Flower Moon, hell if Martin wasn't tied to it it would be the talk of the town for worst movie because now people are pointing out the little details such as CGI in Native Americans, CGI cows, not focusing on the creation of the FBI, the fact DeNiro and Leo are double the age their characters are suppose to be, the telling the audience the theme of the film at the end. Etc But since Marty directed it and he made Goodfellas it must be ground breaking cinema and great for Native Americans even tho it's just Native Torture Porn for white people to feel good about
@@nickrustyson8124 that's an incredibly reductive last sentence and nothing that you just said are valid criticisms at all.
Counterpoint: The Wachowski Sisters' Speed Racer, Sam Mendes' Skyfall & Spectre, Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi, Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi's Shin Godzilla, anything Phil Lord & Chris Miller make.
I really don't get the audacity of some of these people. Apocalypse now is one of my favourite movies but it's so obvious that Coppola's involvement wasn't the only thing going for it. What about the actual source material, heart of darkness?? Or perhaps Marlon Brando's performance??
I'm no filmmaker but I always appreciated David Lynch's approach to art. He always tries to remind us that art shouldn't be born out of suffering.
I had to walk out of the theatre, it was so bad.
I've only seen a bit of this but I already completely agree. People always prefer the "myths" of someone they admire, as opposed to the truth. Often great artists have deep flaws and people have to confront that instead of excusing bad behavior. I'm in no way saying that films by certain directors who have behaved badly should be canceled. I'm saying people need to accept hearing hard truths about people they admire and call them out on it.
I’ve been waiting for this one
Auteur theory was more a theory for advertisers and promoters than filmmakers themselves anyway. In short, you create a brand around yourself as a filmmaker that people come to accept and expect a certain level of quality, and then you deliver on that implicit promise. You don't need to be a genius to be a brand. Just a competent enough executor of whatever story you're telling. If that grants one the freedom to make their own projects and be successful, then neat. But auteur theory was never about the directors themselves, just their public images. The fact that Steven Spielberg and co latched onto it in the 70s speaks more to those directors being more unknown than the preceding generation and needing to burnish their reputation by claiming that they were all geniuses and wouldn't it make sense for producers and studios to make all the money in the world and get all the accolades at the same time by employing the resident geniuses to get it? Hence the advertising part of "auteur" theory which in my opinion makes more sense than Michael Bay being a genius for racist robots.
Pretty much imagine Coppola jumping around like Michael Scott from the office but instead of repeating "parkour!", he's saying "auteur!" whenever he's on set making a movie.
Absolutely amazing video! Everything was so well said and I’m definitely excited to watch more of your content now!
I still need to watch more films by women, people of color, queer people, etc. but I wholeheartedly agree that people like Kubrick, Spielberg, and especially Nolan are wildly overrated. They're good filmmakers (particularly Kubrick) but I find it difficult to connect to their characters and don't find their films as emotionally impactful as I would hope based on the monumental praise they get. I'll say I am still a sucker for Scorsese despite his problematic traits, but I am trying to expand my horizons
The Watermelon Woman is absolutely brilliant. Check that film out if you can!
oh i’ve been waiting for this one YIPEEEEE
yesss i was waiting for this video I'm so excited! thank you for your well thought out and interesting videos elle i love them
Kasi Lemmons directed the 1997 film Eve's Bayou. It's fantastic Southern Gothic film perfect for Halloween or even summer. And yet she's not talked about or given the amazing opportunities men are. Sucks!
I know that Bojack is referenced visually throughout the episode a few times but this feels like watching an episode of girl croosh podcast with Diane Nguyen.
Also I feel like I cannot say this anywhere else; Spielberg is Drake of the movie industry. By that I don’t mean that he is a pdf file, that side of Drake is more personified by Tarantino. I mean he is much faster at recognizing what is going to be popular in the coming seasons and attaching himself to it and using it to add onto his ever-growing die-hard fanbase. Until the fanbase implodes eventually.
i love this topic, thank youuu for your insights
There is a shocking lack of female auteur directors. We need more female voices like those of Agnes Varda !
It's shocking how little women are held in the same high regard as their male contemporaries despite a lot of them being amazing directors in their own right.
On a side note: The Wachowski Sisters, Naoko Yamada, Celine Sciamma, and Lynne Ramsay are prime female auteurs.
The fact that people let Coppola's mythology influence their reviews is hilarious. It's 45 years since Apocalypse now and Coppola has done numbers of films since then, none of which even touch the scale of what he put in the 70s with some just horrible or having awful casting or some major issues.
Like his last notable movie was Dracula and that was in the 90s and that came out the same year as Godfather 3 which is a piece of shit, and then he followed those two with Jack (Probably if not then whatever he made in between is just unnoticeable) and Jack is what I expect from a Problem Child or Look Who Talking director
even his 70's films are not THAT good. the godfather is the most overrated film of all time. apocalypse now is very impressive, but at the same time it's obvious that certain aspects of the film didn't work the way they were supposed to work. i haven't seen the conversation, so idk if it's really that good or not. honestly francis ford coppola is the most mid of the directors that are considered the greatest of all time. yasujiro ozu would be the second place, he literally made the same film multiple times in the 50s-60s. tokyo story is the second most overrated film of all time, it's just a ripoff of "make way for tomorrow" and "late spring"
on the plus side one of the reasons auteur and mythologising happen in theatre, opera, cinema, is because they could just lie. these days most things can be checked far more easily
I think you might be a bit confused, Leonardo da Vinci are DiCaprio aren't related, DiCaprio is cousins with the turtle
I also want to add that it was Marcia Lucas who helped edit and shaped the mess that George Lucas made with Star Wars into something that people could actually watch -- specifically, she edited it so that people actually cheered for Han when he came back to help Luke at that final scene. Of course, after the divorce, her contribution was entirely played down.
A glance at front covers of my film collection shows auteurship is frequent, but not where I expected. Directors names absent on Casablanca, The Godfather, Chinatown, Paris Texas, Dr Strangelove, Blade Runner, Annie Hall, Apocalypse Now, Moonlight and Godfather Pt 2. Directors and cast on Vertigo, Breathless, A Matter of Life and Death, City Lights, It Happened One Night, No Country for Old Men and The Piano. Director sole attribution on La Regle du Jeu, Ran, Solaris, Tokyo Story, Hana-Bi, L' Armee des Ombres, Spirited Away, Chungking Express, Alice in the Cities and Schindler's List. Director possessive on Citizen Kane, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Spirited Away and Rashomon; and director possessive dominant in FELLINI 8 1/2
The WGA has been fighting the proprietary directorial credit for a long time. It's a long standing fight between writers and directors.
Older fandom days were interesting too in the aspect of not idealizing the director and finding the other aspects of the film such as the writers and set designers as just concrete forms of canon. queer people fans, for example, often would over ride what the director said to see if maybe the writers/actors had hinted at something, or maybe the color coordinator purposely made the background pride flag colors. Thus we'd create fan art, fanfics, theories based off the validity of other people opinions and how they affected the end product of the film.
"You're a male film student who doesn't know Greta Gerwig? Let me spew everything I know about her films."
Wha?
Thank you for this video. The amount of times film bros around me gave me the stare and became dead silence because I said out loud that I don't like Scorsese and despise Tarantino, or I do not saw one movie of Polanski... Then they tried to tell me that I misunderstand "Cinema" because of course they did. The way they always give these directors not just the benefit of the doubt but the whole mythology without any logic or criticism is pretty tiring. What they able to see if the director is new or a woman or POC they close their eyes to all flaws if it comes from a "legendary director". Same with method actors vs "problematic" actresses.
You are just making your personal psychological issues other people's problem. There is objectivity, eat trash in your own time. But if someone has a different opinion than you then listen to it.
@@iammraat3059 I saw multiple movies from Scorsese and Tarantino and I have multiple problems with both. If you were the side of objectivity you shouldn't bring personal insults into a cultural argument. You could just argue about the subject.
I did not said that you have to agree with me. I just have a different opinion than yours. You should hear your own advice about that.
@@iammraat3059 the way you’ve projected onto this entire comment thread is frankly awe inspiring
@@chadrific sorry to interrupt your secret circle jerk with some opposing viewpoints lady
i lovedddd this video, im not that much into films but i love your insights and it definitely made me remember how collaborative films are!
To play devil's advocate for a second, directors get all the credit for great films because they risk the blame for bad films. Every time a director makes a film, man or woman, they are risking their talent and their career. If it flops, that can seriously impede their chances of getting another film made. Actors also catch some of the risk, but the rest of the crew mostly move on unscathed to other projects.
Secondly, most of the so-called auteur films in classical sense (meaning one person writing and directing a personally inflected project) are an act of immense personal will. If you spend years of your life polishing a screenplay, finding producers, raising a budget, spending sleepless nights planning the shoot, and then spending weeks or months on set being a leader and having to answer a dozen questions a minute from all your actors and HODs before spending months in the editing room trying to get a project over the finish line, you better believe that you're gonna want to own that above-the-line "A film by....." credit.
Secondly, Coppola, despite all of his flaws as human and as a director, is actually known to be one of the most collaborative directors in the business. He is as far from a Fritz Lang-style tyrant with a megaphone as one can be. Part of the reason why so many of his films go over schedule and over budget is because he allows so many people, especially actors, into his creative process. He likes to find scenes and evolve the screenplay as he goes. Malick is another director who works in thw same experimental and open-ended way but he doesn't get nearly the same level of vitriol. And, it begs to be said, Coppola self-funded Megalopolis so this accusation that he's wasting time and money is a moot point. He's signing all the checks, so he can take all the time he wants, and because he spent 40 years trying to get Megalopolis onto the big screen, it's his damn right to call it Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis.
Finally, it is a damn shame that we have had such a shortage of female directors get the opportunity to create great work. But the hegemony of the auteur theory does not preclude women from becoming great directors in the same way that he have had so many great male directors. Agnes Varda, Larisa Shepitko, Sofia Coppola, Jane Campion, Lynne Ramsey, Kathryn Bigalow, Chantel Akerman and many others are 100% auteurs in the classical sense and I look forward to seeing many more women get to make films at every production scale.
Thank you for this video
Directors historically are usually a bit more hands off, especially in TV (they will just pull some one in for maybe 4 episodes or a dedicated arc). Directors do now produce the product as well. TV does have the show runner, who isn't necessarily the creator (especially on the very few long-running series like Power Rangers, frankly a move to New Zealand after the 10th season and 4 distinct ownership eras works to that favor. Although there was one person who had the job in all for eras- Judd "Chip" Lynn. He and Jackie Marchand are probably the writing staff with the most credits for a majority of series existence- wouldn't be surprised if there are suit actors or miscellaneous crew who were in almost all of the 20 seasons shot in New Zealand)
The shining is literally focused on the commercial trivialization of domestic abuse via *to the moon jannicceee* violent clown husband tv stereotypes. In what universe would someone like Kubrick not try to bring those dynamics directly and literally to his set(or at least spread myths about it after the fact)
I just stumbled onto your video randomly and listened in rapt attention to the whole thing. Very well done and very interesting. Just subscribed and I’ll be checking out more content.
The way I just finished my film history term today! This video literally hits on every point of my exam!
hope your exam went well :)
06:49; can anyone else but directors contractually get final cut...this answers the question.
Ahh!!! Let’s go
Pulp Fiction was my favourite movie but when I saw it at the cinema in 1994, but Tarrantino steals scenes from older movies.
Y'know it's kind of ironic because I recently read an article were Tarantino was calling out the Hunger Games for being a rip off of Battle Royle only for him to do something similar with his own films
@@awhimsyreader9015 Stealing ideas or shots is a bit different than stealing the entire premise and plot of a movie though.
@@Largentina. yeah I know objectively stealing a premise is worse but I just think it's funny that he's against the general idea of stealing but then does it himself even if it's in a smaller scale sort of way
@@awhimsyreader9015 if you knew abt tarantino youd know you're *meant* to catch the references in his films. He doesn't steal to try to say he came up with it himself. Its an homage to earlier cinema
@@vilkristproductions6772 Absolutely. Plus, he would rave about the movies he just paid homage to endlessly in the accompanying promo tour and REALLY wants you to watch them. I mean, Tarantino has a lot of problems, but let's not invent some for cheap gotchas, alright?
Nolan is not a 'fantastic artist'. You're absolutely spot on that many 'auteurs' do not deserve the reverence they receive from the 'film bros', which is mostly unthinking bullshit.
He’s definitely not the GOAT as film bros sees him as, but he does have his moment from time to time. I also noticed you on another video commenting that he’s a terrible filmmaker, which I agree in some aspects and disagree in others - curious to hear your view on Nolan’s weaknesses and strengths as a filmmaker.
That being said I do agree with your comment on Auteurism and how it contributes to uncritical fanboyism, which is indeed bullshit.
I attribute a lot of issues with modern filmaking with 3 main things. The Red Scare successfully purging all left leaning people out of hollywood and making sure it still hasn't covered. The second would be the Wallstreet influences of the 80's and their franchise model of production. Third would be the federal government completely redsuing to take any responsibility for regulating any and allowing the likes of Disney and others control and commodify every aspect of the industry.
I will say that I LOVED Megalopolis however. I don't have any particular fondness for Coppola but I will say I found every frame to be comepletely metaphorical to include the time control not literally be freezing time. In a world where few original film get made it was refreshing. I don't know if it's Tik Tok but media literacy is abysmal right now. Hopefully films like Megalopsis can help people be exposed to odd interpretations let alone basic ones.
Thosands of people are required to make a movie
Thoughts on Chantal Akerman (an auteur) filming a long explicit sex scene starring herself and her actress in "Je, tu, il, elle"? Would you call that abuse?
If they had consented and talked through it before actually filming it, then no.
28:04 huh, interesting. I didn't know that.
"your artistic process is worth more than time, money of other people"
Megalopolis was funded by Coppola. By his OWN money.
Surely he can do whatever he wants with his own money, right?
Directors are to film like Priests are to churches like Politicians are to public servants. Narcissists are attracted to positions of power and social capital that will help them not just have access to new targets but keep them safe while openly causing harm, loads of open secrets and get out of jail free cards. I hold a firm belief that there are things in life you can only want if there is something wrong with you. And yes this goes to the majority of institutions of power, like academia or conglomerates or the police. Big money sports, things like K-pop training, modelling. Hollywood and Broadway have this too. They are the kinds of places that sell suffering (of the self or imposed on others) as aspirational. And that's why abusive people thrive, they have so many people primed to be taken advantage of who WANT that sh.t because it makes them feel worthy. Cult sh.t
That was the dumbest shit I've every read lmao. What are you some gay anarchist lol???
good video, i agree with what you said about films working crew to death while they get shit pay and really no artistic credit.
in your last point about cooper, i think people will tolerate a lot if they think someone has talent, i.e. the film is good enough. i think the reason why he gets clowned is because of the perceived difference in his ambition vs his actual output.
also i think writers are pretty under appreciated not just in film but in tv and other entertainment, most people know nothing about the writers of a lot of their favourite works
Fantastic video, thanks for making it! I'm definitely subscribing.
I especially appreciate you pointing out that Nolan is overrated, because holy shit is he ever. But film bros just lose their minds at the thought. See, it's not that Oppenheimer is tedious, it's that we don't understand Nolan's genius! And don't get me wrong, I think he's a good director and I really like some of his films, but I just don't get the hype that he receives and how film bros just fall over each other to praise him (and to berate those who don't think he's that good).
Bro you know it’s way harder to disseminate a particular cinematic vision to the hundreds of artists and craftsmen involved with ur production than it is to fuckinh per se be the only person writing ur own prose novel. This fractured design process puts more responsibility on an *auteur*’s shoulders not less
Which isn’t to say that say Isabella Rossellini or Laura dern are any less intelligent or talented than David lynch, their distinct work lives in that film too and makes it more than the script
The "genius director" aka overrated white dude is basically just the creative version of the Hollywood "A List" actor. These are not people who are any better or talented then everyone else in film and TV. On the contrary the "A list" actors I'll argue are even worse than many "mid tier" actors. These are just Hollywood's hand selected choices on who they want to push down your throat as being "the best". The reasons can vary, but ultimately it comes down to these are the people the higher ups in Hollywood (CEOs, execs, high powered agencies, etc) has on a leash and they invested tons of money in.
Also because these are the hand selected people Hollywood wants you to think is "the best", same Hollywood also basically gatekeeps on how gets to reach that level of fame and keep the majority of creators and actors away from that "A list" spot.
Who are the "truly "great filmmakers then?
@@Anton-i2o I actually never really thought it through. I do know I'm going to have to look at all directors from everywhere and have a feeling at least someone from Japan should be mentioned.
@@entertainmentfan1463 There are geniuses in every artistic field...
Babe wake up new elle literacy video just dropped
I would argue that films that are more truly collaborative are better films than those controlled so completely by one person.
Kill Bill is the ONLY one of these films I've ever watched more than once, because none of them are what I would call good enough to watch again. I think films genuinely suffer from auture mentality.
Yeah, I do not think that Tarantino’s footfetish is a problem… because half of all art is porn. And I don’t mean literal porn, I mean fetishes, eroticism, sexual subtext (or text) and it’s ok. Let people have their sexual content in art. And I’m not saying that Tarantino is perfect and innocent, fck him, fck all the tyrants on set. I’m saying that fetish content in art is not the problem.
Like, have you seen the clay scene in “ghost”? It’s like pure porn. AND THATS OK.
Or if we’re talking about women directors: the “finger in the armpit” scene in “portrait of a lady on fire”
😒
Photography can capture a single moment so perfectly. Many great film directors are photographers... they capture a series of moving moments.
There is intrinsic beauty to each and every shot they produce. It is what cinephiles crave... the beauty of the photography of the moving image.
Which is partly why cinema is the greatest art form. It binds each sense... the eye, the ear and the heart into one whole experience.
Yet most, if not all of cinema fails as a complete entity. Every great film masters one or two aspects of the art form...but falls short in the others.
Pushing away your own nostalgia, or sense of self-worth because of your relationship to it. Each film is only cherished because of a collection,
of single fragmentary moments. The cinephiles love of cinema... is the love of something implicitly imperfect.
I really enjoyed this topic. The continuation of putting these big name directors on these magnificent pedestals is one of the major irks I have with the entertainment industry, especially when it comes to awards season. And I say this a a big Spielberg fan.
Whenever ive had criticisms of jodorowsky theres always one film bro that will spend hours trying to argue with me that I "just dont get film," yet their opinions are always a carbon copy of someone else's and they cant expand further. Liking a film thats outside of the mainstream doesn't mean youre deep, especially if you dont have your own original opinion on it.
Edit to add: the amout of film bro trolls in the comments 😂 that regurgitate the same talking points ive heard for years just shows me how many people still dont have their own original thoughts or criticisms on some topics
Yes, yes ,yes on this video. As both a movie fan and maker, people like Kubrick Spielberg, Nolan, etc are held up as near gods in that community. But most of these gods have shaky pedestals. Apart from his well-documented bullying of Shelley Duvall and misogynist attitude to female characters (Clockwork Orange is of the worst examples), there's also the way Kubrick treated his long time assistant (the late) Leon Vitali. Vitali essentially gave up his acting career to do everything Kubrick wanted, and was sometimes berated badly for it. In the excellent Filmworker documentary, there's a sad moment when Vitali is shown walking visitors around a prestigious Kubrick exhibition...even though he wasn't invited to be part of said exhibition. Kubrick's family essentially abandoned Vitali after the director died. He suffered serious mental and physical health issues because of it too.
People like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski still get lauded today as creative geniuses, despite their shady/awful behaviour. Yes, 'Manhattan' has one of the most beautiful openings of any movie in history...but Woody Allen didn't film it (Gordon Willis did), he didn't write or play 'Rhapsody in Blue', he didn't directed those folk on the streets, etc (just random New Yorkers), or even edit it...yet he gets credited as the sole auteur. The moment Allen's voiceover starts on that opening sequence and then segue ways into that yucky bar scene, 'Manhattan' is over for me.
Coppola hasn't made a truly memorable film since 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' IMHO. Yet he still thinks he's living his 'rebel' life in the seventies, when he did direct some true masterpieces. But The Godfather was written by Mario Puzo, acted by Brando, Pacino, etc, photographed by (again) Gordon Willis...Coppola didn't do any of that. The very last moment of that movie is almost a metaphor for Coppola himself...the egotistical, manipulative monster Michael being fawned over by his lackeys, whilst his wife has the door shut on her. I will watch Megaflopolis on streaming some time, when I'm in a silly mood. Coppola's support of fellow director/child abuser Victor Salva and his helping to supress Salva's victims is what really puts me off him.
I don't think, from what I've seen and heard, that Christopher Nolan is an awful person, yet his ego seems to be sky high. His die-hard fans don't help and are probably the most intense film bros out there...no, Tenet isn't a mess, it's just intended to be that way mortals! I found it telling that after the awards success of Oppenheimer (good, but too long and ponderous), Nolan had Tenet re-released...so we can see what a misunderstood masterpiece it really was. Yes, there are some great Christopher Nolan directed movies, but he's also made some flawed, pretentious and unwatchable stuff (The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar, Tenet).
Spielberg seems to be fairly blemish free, though like Coppola, hasn't made anything truly memorable in decades. I do remember reading that he was rather cold towards Verna Fields, the editor of 'Jaws', after that movie was released. I don't think he liked the fact that her skilful editing really saved that movie...and this parallels how George Lucas was towards his ex-wife with 'Star Wars' - another 70s blockbuster that was saved in the editing room. But it was Spielberg and Lucas who would be lauded as the movie brat kings, not Verna and Marsha.
Terry Gilliam, another self-proclaimed genius that directed some great movies in the past, but like Coppola, now lives in this vacuum where he bitches about being a rebel to the system-yet still wants Hollywood stars to appear in his movies. Don't get me started on his idiotic rants about pro-nouns and 'wokeism' (which is weird, considering he appeared in a Wachowski Sisters' movie and has praised them too), and then there's his opinion of 'Me Too' (Ellen Barkin had something to say about that). He's living on past glories and this rebel genius auteur schtick.
Tarantino, a man who has shamelessly ripped off other movies, lives in a 70s time warp, moans about digital technology (despite allowing Netflix to show his films), and now spends most of his time dissing other filmmakers. I remember watching the documentary QT8 years back, and there are two moments where it appears folk (Tarantino's collaborators and friends) are really trying to distance him from both Harvey Weinstein and what happened to Uma Thurman. Tarantino himself is notable by his absence. I found these rather bizarre and oddly slotted into what's otherwise meant to be a documentary about the movies. Yes, then there's his foot fetish thing and the 'playful' choking of Diane Kruger.
While Neil Gaiman is not a movie director, his own recent, alleged behaviour towards female fans/employees wouldn't be out of place in this video either. When these men are pampered, pandered to and lauded for so long, then abuses of power absolutely happen. Gods only stay gods when we allow them unconditional power.
"A Clockwork Orange" was about awful behavior though. And how people/societies/movie audiences can be manipulated into accepting it. "Film Worker" is great! The Kubrick family had no say who got invited to that exhibition in Los Angeles. They were not involved. Vitali actually helped finish "Eyes Wide Shut", Kubrick died just a week after submitting his first draft so to speak.
In art community , most of the art graduate are women , but when it comes to making in market and museum , it is being dominated by men artists ..they are declared as genius
I’m in film school right now, and it’s so annoying how most people in my class support only American filmmakers all of them man, i hate when the film discussion only apply to USA
I would disagree re: Dede Allen was famous as an editor; maybe it’s a more recent thing, but Polly Platt is known about, and accorded so much reverence that Peter Bogdanovich ironically is becoming ‘underrated’; Julia Phillips, a producer along with her husband in New Hollywood (of The Sting; Taxi Driver) has always been acknowledged as an instrumental figure.
i dont think guys who think Tarantino is the greatest director have watched that many non-american, non-mainstream films. or even his inspo. makes the "suffering for great art" bs sound even more silly.
woah never been this early, slay
40:13 AGH!