Truffaut and his colleagues at the magazine Cahiers du Cinema recognized that moviemaking was an industrial process. However, they proposed an ideal to strive for: using the commercial apparatus just the way a writer uses a pen. While recognizing that not all directors reached this ideal, they valued the work of those who neared it.
This theory espouses that all good directors (and many bad ones) have such a distinctive style that their fingerprints end up on the film. You cannot see a film by that director without recognizing their influence. The strength of this theory (and the logical penchant for directors to support it) have been blamed for the irrational lack of attention some early directors received during the heyday of film theory. Howard Hawks was argued to be a hack because he had too many movies across too many genres. Allan Dwan still has not received much critical recognition both because too few of his films are in circulation and he made too many without contemporary attention.
The auteurist critics—Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer—wrote mostly about directors, although they also produced some shrewd appreciations of actors. Later writers of the same general school have emphasized the contributions of star personalities like Mae West. However, the stress was on directors, and when Andrew Sarris exported the theory to the United States, screenwriters, producers and others reacted with a good deal of hostility. Writer William Goldman has said that, on first hearing the auteur theory, his first reaction was, "What's the punchline?"
The auteur theory significantly influenced the nouvelle vague movement of French cinema in the 1960s. * This directory began as support pages for Film&Drama class only; Film-North is the place to visit for Filmmaking.
film books
virtual theatre
webbing
Directing Forum
(c)2004 *
Summary
"Film History" page is only for the timeline, for understanding of the historical (philosophical, political, social) background of filmmakers and their styles.Questions
filmstudy berkeley (grad) A film genre is a rough categorization of films into genres, which describe the typical subject matter—what the film is about: Western films are about the American West, love stories are about love, and so on. This is distinct from film styles, which describe filmic conventions which can be applied to any genre (see below). Of course, the more that genres are defined, the more likely that a filmmaker will try to combine, transcend and evade categories, so not every film can be neatly labeled.Homework
Tarkovsky Links CZ *** kinoeye.org *Tarkovsky : R-Cinema + USSR + Rublev + Mirror notes for "Film & Movies" class *
Notes
Must introduce the concept by Spengler: Culture vs. Art ("The Sunset of Europe")."There are no rules in film-making. Only sins. And the cardinal sin is dullness." -- Frank Capra A film style is a recognizable group of conventions used by filmmakers to add visual appeal, meaning, or depth to their work. It can encompass every aspect of film: dialogue, cinematography, attitude (i.e., seriousness or lack thereof).
Film style is distinct from film genre, which defines what a film is about. Although some styles are strongly associated with certain genres, a style can be applied to any genre -- Barbarella is a surrealistic science fiction film, for example.
Potemkin "steps" fragment Eisenstein (video.mov)
Pudovkin. St. Petersburg (video.mov)
silent era page (part IV.)
new pages --
...
