RE: Is being an "auteur" a good thing?

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Is being an "auteur" a good thing?

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Is being an "auteur" a good thing?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Is being an "auteur" a good thing? - 31/1/2012 1:53:43 PM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

tony scott would be an auteur if he brought same precison/control of his directing to all his films, not just 'crimson tide' 'top gun' or 'true romance'.

You seem to be misunderstanding. Auteur theory is essential a way of approaching a filmmakers body of work from a critique perspective. You could, in theory, talk about any filmmaker in that way, regardless of the quality of their films.

(in reply to spark1)

Post #: 31

RE: Is being an "auteur" a good thing? - 31/1/2012 8:11:14 PM

tommyjarvis

Posts: 6609
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Caught somewhere in time

quote:

ORIGINAL: scarface666brooksy!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

YUO is NEVER the right thread.

Touch� and adding my thoughts to auteur debate, in some respects I guess it could be a good thing to be an auteur because you can gain quite a large fan-base for your films like Kubrick, Tarantino, Wes Anderson etc. or you can become a complete and utter joke like Uwe Boll or Michael Bay and get ridiculed for that style of film-making of which you've become known for.

Given the amount of money his films make I doubt Michael Bay worries too much about internet critics labelling him a joke.

_____________________________

"I've been too honest with myself, I should have lied like everybody else"

My Top 101 Rock Songs - The first Audiophile list to actually get completed!

(in reply to scarface666brooksy!!)

Post #: 32