I am reading Mike Curtis at HD for Indies flipping out (via Kent Nichols) right now. It is long, and, well, ranty. But his ‘anecdote’ regarding career development piqued my interest:

“Anecdote – it used to be that the hot new movie directing talent came up through commercials and music videos – think David Fincher. McG is, I think, the last name I can think of that came up that route that has achieved commercial success. Anybody else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? There was a list of top 50 hot talent something or other. Nobody under 30. Where’s the new talent coming from? Not from music videos anymore – there’s barely a market, and certainly no real money, in that anymore.”

(more…)

Some people theorize (citation needed…) that the horror genre gives us an embodiment and outlet for our amorphous and repressed fears. There are corollaries about the rise of horror revenues during times of socioeconomic tumult and war. Horror, the theories go, allows us to release these emotions vicariously, in small doses, and within the safe confines of genre. Cinema has an arc, a structure, and most importantly a resolution. We do not have to explore our own psychological demons introspectively, without a net. Instead, we can sit back, blow off some steam and know that in 90 minutes all will be right in the world again. It grants catharsis and control to the conscious, and spear points to keep the darkest recesses of our minds at bay.

Bias warning: I personally am not a fan of the horror genre. I have a variety of personality traits that prevent me from getting much enjoyment horror movies. Mostly I prefer to be in control of as much as possible at all times. Perhaps I am just not able to let go of this, and thus the idea of impending doom actually creates more anxiety for me rather than releasing it. Regardless, my general ambivalence to the genre has prevented me from studying it too closely. However, the above theories are very intriguing to me as a filmmaker.

(more…)

On one hand, some of the most important intellectual work of our civilization was done by great, creative thinkers not bound to one area of specialization. Da Vinci was “a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer”; Newton a “physicist, mathematician, astronomer, theologian, natural philosopher”. Modern society is built upon work by polymaths.

On the other hand, one of the most oft cited (and very valid) criticisms to auteur theory is that filmmaking is a collaborative process. However, I have already discussed how current economic conditions now allow for the entire industrial side of filmmaking to be executed by teams as small as one. So how could a creative, intelligent individual perfectly execute every step in the filmmaking workflow to create a film of unified vision, high art and quality?

(more…)

As of now, I am a practicing filmmaker (again). Only this time I have plan. In the past I bought a camera, found a screenplay macro for Word, and made my friends parade around in my “comedies”. Back then I had a very specific goal, to work out the digital workflow, then master each part of the indie process: write, direct, edit. But I forgot one part: producing. Sure, someone called all those friends and twisted their arms, someone forced me to write something, someone screened those works. Again it was me, but the really bad indie producer me made really bad producer decisions that led writer me to write junk, director me to suck and left distributor me with nothing to show for all the effort. Eventually writer, director me took his camera and went home.

(more…)

The critical thought behind Auteur Theory led to real changes in regional cinemas, even if for short periods. The French Cahiers critics used their critical work to launch their own filmmaking careers. However, that impact was short lived.

Because, like many critical studies, the politique des auteurs ignored the contexts that helped shape it, once social and economic conditions changed, the framework as practiced by the New Wave filmmakers was too rigid to adapt and survive.

(more…)

Before I begin, I should state what my purpose is here. I am studying classic film theory to see if and how relevant it can be to a practicing independent filmmaker today and in the future. My judgments are not qualitative, but are based on this perspective. I have thus far, and will continue to key on very specific parts of Auteur Theory that can be useful within this context. Here, however, I will detail why I reject other aspects of criticism in general, as they pertain to the criteria I have laid out.

I have observed the large role played by the critic in critical studies. Of course this should be obvious, but the critic commands too large a role and can directly cancel out some parts of his or her framework. The hierarchy of importance in most studies appears to be:

(more…)

I will preface this post thusly:

1. It does not take very much study of Auteur Theory to run into some of the fundamental conflicts I have alluded to earlier. One of the biggest is this: can film even be art (like a painting or poem) since it is a commercial commodity (like orange juice or gasoline).
2. I am in no way an advocate of art cinema. I think Ingmar Bergman and Truffaut made amazing, and important films. I think La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc is one of the most artistic works I have ever seen, in any medium. However, Bergman, Truffaut and Dreyer made some of the most boring movies in history. They are perfectly suited for the darkened screening rooms of film schools or the endless Netflix queues of budding critics. However, the will never be mainstream.

The new economics of the Long Tail and digital video production make modern art cinema a viable endeavor. Yes, today as much as ever, filmmaking is a capitalistic exercise. However, these new economics can open a lot of doors. Let’s explore how the process of art cinema production might work today.

(more…)

I am deeply entrenched in The Cinema Book, 2nd Ed. edited by Pam Cook and Mieke Bernink (third edition now out, no idea what the difference might be, other than less used copies available for film students). I am walking through the book in my study of Auteur Theory. Thus far, I have covered a brief section on the Nouvelle Vague (French New Wave), a brief illustration of the studio system/golden age of Hollywood and today I began an entire section (~80 small print 8.5″x11″ pages) on authorship in film studies. The brief introduction has given me the following insight into la politique des auteurs, crafted by Andre Bazin and colleagues.

(more…)

I am studying classical film criticism, mostly Auteur Theory (which I will get into much greater depth later). I have studied most of this in the past, but I am bringing a new angle to this research now that I am not being forced to do it by graduation requirements. There exists in classical film criticism, and I assume most artistic study, a number of basic conflicts.

Auteur Theory, for instance, rose out of a specific set of socio-economic conditions in a very specific place and time (post-WWII France.) One could just as easily study the early incarnations of the theory in the context of those conditions, filmmakers and theorists (in this case, the same people) who developed it. It is often said that a historical work is more a reflection of the author and author’s society than the subject, because there is no such thing as an unbiased account. Within these contexts, Auteur Theory may be the most important development in the industry of filmmaking, at least for a small group of people within a small subset of time. Here enters the most basic conflict in criticism in general, thanks to modern criticism: Even if Auteur Theory is relevant or even important in such a narrow place and time, film itself is a commodity, a reflection of capitalistic forces. Auteur theory cannot grant artful status upon this commodity any more than classical economics can bestow artful status upon any other assembly line product. The conflict is this: no matter how elegant or interesting studying these other contexts of production and product may be, the just don’t mean anything; it is useless.

(more…)