auteur or : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » auteur or » auteur or

auteur or

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 1012

Posted 05/16/09 - 01:44 PM: Subject: auteur or "art" film?	#1
This post is for those who have an interest in movies: What is the difference between the auteur and the artist - when considering movies? If I say "this film is a work of art." and the film was not made by, say, David Lynch, and doesn't have a screwball logic narrative - and instead has a "classical hollywood" narrative, have I said something incorrect? I don't think so, and I think it is down to the word and concept "art" - which can be applied to almost anything: you only need to hear what people consider art to be: "my cat,,,she is a work of art." Who is going to argue? But, strictly speaking, there are "art movies" - but what is the damn difference? Again, what if I watch a film, and it has a maze-like logic narrative, and at the end of the film I make the utterance: "that film, it was utter shit. And certainly not a work of art." Have I undermined the concept of the "art film" by denying its place as a "work of art"? And the "auteur" in cinema - how on earth is that different from referring to the director as an "artist" - are all auteurs artists, are all artists auteurs?
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

Thinking Thing
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 331

Posted 05/17/09 - 07:05 AM:	#2
The auteur film contains predominantly the vision of one person, the author of that film. There are some classic Hollywood films that arguably fit that bill. The champions of auteur theory were champions of Hitchcock, Ford and Hawks. But the quintessential auteurs, like Godard, are those whose films could not have been made by any other film-maker, auteur or otherwise. Lynch, Cronenberg, Tarr, the Coens, Almodovar are exampes of today. What an art movie is should depend on what art is, but generally art cinema refers to anything outside the mainstream which, given how narrow and shallow the mainstream now is, underdefines what art cinema is in an understandably way. An art film will generally fall into that description, but often so do independent films, foreign mainstream films, etc. What art is objectively, as something separate from the artist, has been debated and probably shall ever be debated, perhaps because the relationship between artist and art is inseparable. A piece of art is something that has been made for artistic purposes, that is to appeal to an audience that views/hears it. In other words, we can rely at least on a teleological view to build a broad definition of art by asking what was it made for? Most films are made to be sold, to make money: that is their raison d'etre. Films outside the mainstream often made to be seen, but can just as often be made as a stepping stone to build a career by which to make money. Further, the most powerful film-makers working in the mainstream have not only guaranteed income but the choice of subject matter and form (esp Spielberg). Such film-makers do not make a particular film to make money, for any film suggested to them will probably do so. The choice of subject matter and form then comes down to what they wish to be seen. So, by this argument, the films of the most powerful film-makers in the mainstream could be considered, broadly, art movies. This is usually contested by limiting what counts as art rather than how an individual piece justifies itself within an artform.

coalclear
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 28

Posted 06/17/09 - 11:39 PM:	#3
litkey wrote: What is the difference between the auteur and the artist - when considering movies? I LOVE movies (its my major) so I'd be glad to further this discussion or relevant ones anytime! Lets look at it from the perspective contrasting an auteur and a traditional painter like Van Gogh (most definitely can be considered an artist). There is little difference, especially for an auteur (basically a director given total control). The auteur gets downplayed however because he is forced to work with a group therefore taking the romanticism of creation by a single person away. litkey wrote: have I said something incorrect? I don't think so. Who is going to argue? Absolutely true, no one can deny this, though some might throw snobby and confusingly pretentious yet irrelevant notions of what something means to be "art", etc. litkey wrote: But, strictly speaking, there are "art movies" - but what is the damn difference? Personally I don't buy into "art movies", there is absolutely no such thing in my opinion. A film is a film, even grouping them into genres irritates me. litkey wrote: are all auteurs artists, are all artists auteurs?" not sure if I follow.. Edited by coalclear on 06/17/09 - 11:44 PM
"Submerge yourself into what you love so much that it becomes you." "The universe surrenders to your thoughts of it, that, is the ultimate power."

Elston
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 10, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 09/21/09 - 12:08 AM:	#4
The auteur theory is bullshit. It is an uninteresting and irrelevant theory, something made up by film critics to pass the time.

nelvan
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 101

Posted 09/21/09 - 08:42 AM:	#5
I am not sure what auteur is but as to the difference between what is an "art" film and a typical "hollywood" film, I do have an opinion. A commercial film has a formula, usually with a beginning, middle, and end, in which the audience usually knows exactly what they are getting and can even predict the ending before the start of the movie. Commercial movies are ritualistic. If an audience member says, "I don't like how the monster died" it is probably a commercial movie. The commercial film is built around the audience's expectations while the art film is oblivious to the audience. I think the best films are the ones that blur the lines between art and commercial films, and that there should be a balance between the artist and the audience in order to avoid indulgence on either part. The best art, in my opinion, is to establish a relationship or partnership between artist and audience and that one not be absolutely subservient to the other.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.