Sat

15

Mar

2014

The Pessimistic Auteur

In the reading assigned two weeks ago, Auteurism Today, the author writes "Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic." What does he mean? Be sure to support your response with evidence. In other words, I am not asking solely for your opinion. 

Write a comment

Comments: 19
  • #1

    Rawnaq abu laban (Monday, 17 March 2014 12:21)

    What I understand that film can never be reduced to the imagination of a single individual because it should be a part of the culture like the (thoughts, acts, and beliefs).
    And sometimes the auteur use his personal style in the film, but his style still controlled by the audience response, so their response give them the power.

    And "Auteurism gives power to the film critic", it was written in the book that the structure of film as the clearly coherent stylistic and thematic operation of a singular imagination. and that the control to the reality of film is a part of a complex culture mix, so it is mixing various kinds of analysis-auteur, genre, culture, so the culture mix gives the power.

  • #2

    Asma' (Monday, 17 March 2014 15:19)

    Auteruism it is based on the idea of reducing the collective imaginations (cultural imaginations) to individual imaginations.


    It means that Auteruism support the critic of the film as it is reflecting the auture's (author) ideas, thought and beliefs even it is an individual imagination not collective. But, Auterusim makes the film critic powerful because of several points. First of all, Auterusim has convenience and implied intimacy that make it so seductive. Secondly, It offers analytical tools that make the audience understand the structure of the film as the clearly coherent stylistic and thematic operation of a singular imagination. Thirdly, the commercial and cultural realities of filmmaking overpower to make films by an individual creator with a subjective style and a personal in addition to passionate worldview. These movies, also consider as a "personal" style so the director can make the film as he wants to; he has the control and the self-censor. The writer also considers this stage as the was a serious one of studying films as they has been developed and established during this period.

  • #3

    Tamam Musleh (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 04:30)

    Auterism does give power to the film director because it's his/her vision and something that he/she could be related to. Afterall, how do film directors get these ideas? From personal experiences that they have faced. but sometimes the audience faces the same experiences which helps them relate to the film.

    The film is like a weapon - by that I mean it could change people's emotions, hurt people's feelings, makes them have 'flash backs'. Film critics will either relate or find it boring because when you can't relate to something it's often difficult to understand the hidden meaning.

  • #4

    Sabi Abu-Swelim (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 06:35)

    On the one hand, Auteurism holds that "the director is the controlling force in the structure of a film", which means that the director reflects and embodies his own personal narrative and vision. But, this is all a theory, " a way of talking and thinking about films... to think of redistributing the hierarchies of power in the filmmaking business". Despite the great lure that the Auteurism can make, including the implied intimacy and the analytical tools, the film critic still have their voice up. Because, after all films are "too much a part of the cultural churn, of thoughts, acts...etc."

  • #5

    Mae Shuaib (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 07:51)

    "Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic". (P.110)
    Auteurism is the theory relying on the methods of talking and thinking about films as more meaning than reading a description of the making of a film. He says, "film can never really be reduced to the imagination of a single individual". (P.110) With the voices of society and culture, their thoughts, beliefs, acts and so forth show that not one person is able/allowed to be the only voice to listen/obey to.

    Moreover, "A filmmaker must always be concerned with her audience. "(P.112) because dealing with reception and negotiation the audience ideas,criticism play a big role towards the film makers, directors business in the film. The director's, people working within the film must not loose their audience because the film critics, audience have power in auteurism because they pay money to watch the film and give a review.

  • #6

    Saja Surkhi (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 11:00)

    I think that The writer meant by “the power of film critic” is the power of being able to judge an individual “personal” perspective of someone. As the film Auteur theory is that the director of the film is the someone who wrote i. So, that gives the people who critic the opportunity to talk about his imaginative work, and his own perspective that he aim to show in his films sometimes.
    For example, Alfred Hitchcock is considered the “The father of suspense” , and most of his films uses suspense . So, for people who wants to critique , this is a point could be used as power to critics Hitchcock films.

  • #7

    Eliaa (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 11:06)

    Auteurism is the most important part of the film, because of him/her we like or dislike the film. The style and uniqueness that an auteurism makes in the film affects it, and the audience decides that.
    The autuerism can put or add his/her own and personal style in a film, and that could be the "power", because everybody has their personal thoughts and beliefs, which is different from one to another, but "power" cannot come easly, because not any personal style, beliefs and thoughts are powerful, maybe the autuerism finds it so, but the audience might don't agree.
    furthermore, style, beliefs and thoughts are part of the imagination, a big part in fact. "We admire the idea of the artist, even though we're too often uncomfortable when an "artist" exercises an unusual imagination in film". p.112
    The auteurism creates his/her own vision and imagination, and that's the "powerful" part.

  • #8

    Shazza Zeitawi (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 11:38)

    The author says that an auteur theory ia how people think and reapond to films after beinf watched. The director of a "film can never be reduced to the imagination of a single individual." (P:110), meaning that the director can't really make a film depending on his own imagination, but rather his film focuses on "cultural churn, of the thoughts, acts, artifacts, beliefs, and politics." (P:110) in order to create a story of his own.
    Furthermore, the author says: "Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic." (P:110), meaning that if the director reveals his own feelings and beliefs in his own films, then this would give power to the critic of his film by the audience, for they would want to watch something that is personal and the directer's own experience. The audience's opinions effect the filmmaking business in a positive way if the film depended on "Auteurism" because the audience would want to watch the film all over again and give their own reviews.

  • #9

    Dina Khaled (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 12:16)

    The Film is actually treated as it's a kind of art, although the auteur is creating the Film and so he has lead to criticism the film because of his theories that he used in the film creation he uses his beliefs he use are, culture this all what Auteurism make the film critic powerful, he use his own still with the audience still, in order to have a good positive respond, ''A comfortable style that negotiates with it's audience a series of predictable and flexible responses. '' (pp.112) and so negotiations between the filmmakers and the audience is really good and so by giving a feedback from the audience on the film depend on the style that the film were made and how this style is going with the style of these different audiences.

  • #10

    Tala Zeitawi (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 12:24)

    The author uses "Auteurism" as a weapon for a film's succession by saying "Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic." (Page 110). If the director uses a personal experience in the film o his own, then the audience would respond to the film in a very food way and they would relate to it if they've had the same experience before, which makes them understand hat the director went through throughout his life. Moreover, the audience would talk and think about the Auteurism that happened in the film, rather than how the film was created. Auteurism makes the filmmaking business successful because people would want to watch films that are related to their own feelings and experiences.

  • #11

    Yara Masri (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 12:27)

    the auteur theory is clearly saying that films are not only criticized by its author , the aim of a certain movie and its massages can be understood variously according to the audience's background. the job of a director and an author of a movie is to create that catches the audiences' attention by using professional techniques and writing scripts and directing , but the films massage but the films massage can be different according to the understanding of each individual watcher. " film can never really be reduced to the imagination of a single individual. its too much a part of the cultural churn, of the thoughts, acts, artifacts, beleifes, and politics of the society in which is made"

  • #12

    Yara Masri (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 12:28)

    The quote is page 110

  • #13

    Motaz Alshaer (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 14:29)

    Auteurism is the power of directors ideas, because of auteur theory is based on directors experience in which can analyze and critique his filmmaking. The power of auterusim comes highly from singular imagination with director's stylistic traits, which is the theory controlled by multiple collaborative tasks like photography , screenwriter and actor. So, auterusim is a unique idea that never existed before "there are opportunities for directors that never existed before" p.110

    For example, Roger Ballen's "Asylum of the Birds" short film presents the idea of Auteurism by his brilliant new thinking. Ballen is the director, photography, actor and screenwriter at the same time.

  • #14

    Dima (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 15:05)

    when the author wrote "Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic" he was right and i fully agree. this means that auteurism movies allow the critic to nterpret the movie since it is based on the director's personal vision and imagination. they can criticize the setting and evironment the movie it put in and what the movie was about. they can analyze the situation played in the movie and critique it in the society's perspective. this can go many ways. However, what is beautiful about Auteurism is that it does not contain imagination, since it is based on personal expierance and true events, it will be a reality or at least real. it will something concerete to talk about and analyze. "film can never really be reduced to the imagination of a single individual" p.110 this quote reminds me of subgenre and subculture and how they are both a combination of many things that end up being one. a film's vision does come from a single person, but when the idea is implemented, it requires more than one person in the act. So, film is also a combination of many things then ends up being one thing.

  • #15

    Lama Sub Laban (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 17:00)

    the auteur theory is a way of discussing and talking about films, it is more than a description of how films are actually made,
    auteur is a french word that stands for a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.
    in the book it was said that: "the greatest legacy of auteurism is the recognition on the part of studio executives that directors, after all, can have some imaginative say in the creation of films, even if it is limited"(Pr. 2, P.110)

  • #16

    Omar (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 19:49)

    Auteurism give the director the ideological power and the freedom to use his personal vision and experiences. Director could be using of his own experience as a real example of local problems that he / she want to focus on it, and it is good only if this experience is a social phenomenon, and the director need to show it as near as possible to the audience, also in this case there is a common background and experience somehow between audience and the director.
    quote about that: "Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic we may often need a sacrifice this clarity and control to be the messier realities of film as part of a complex cultural mix" page 110

  • #17

    Dana Abu Hamdieh (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 20:06)

    Film is too dictated and controlled by economics and audience responses, and also restricted to commercial and cultural realities, and as the author states "we admire the idea of the artist, even though we'r too often uncomfortable when an artist exercises an unusual imagination in Film"(p.112). Since film is part of the beliefs and politics of the society in which it is made, this reality makes it very difficult to have film be reduced to the imagination of the singular individual, and creates a limitation for the director over his work and makes less the personal style of the auteur, as the author explains.
    "the economic realities of production worldwide and the tastes of the majority of film-goers militate against it"(p.111). The situation seems to pass alot of power to the Audience, a situation that is explained in the auteur theory that provides a way to think about redistributing hierarchies of power in the filmmaking business. What the Pessimistic Auteur had meant when he said"Auteurism at least gives power to the film critic", is the critic being another kind of audience so far great power from the given realities.

  • #18

    Nadim Alayaseh (Tuesday, 18 March 2014 20:29)

    Films are not created and produced to be watched by only one person or for one individual and this is what the author wanted to say. It is more like a message for and about a group or a certain culture. Critics are absolutely will be there for the auteurs. Since it is mostly one auteur therefore, the audience will analyze his work and his ideas depending on their knowledge and beliefs. The author emphasizes this idea when he states, "We may need to sacrifice this clarity and control to the messier realities of film as part of a complex cultural mix". The critics appear well on the role of the director and his techniques.

  • #19

    Philip Rahn Hopper (Thursday, 20 March 2014 10:59)

    I am going to leave this blog post open but will not consider any more comments.