• Announcements

    • Jay

      Donate to JWFan, win a CD!   05/30/17

      Hello!

      We are significantly behind on our funds for keeping JWFan alive, and need to collect donations again.
      As an incentive, I am offering a series of free CDS to anyone who donates over a certain amount!   Donate at least $10 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $250 goal:   Tyler Bates - God of War; Ascension (OST, La La Land Records) Danny Elfman - Planet of the Apes (OST, Sony) Danny Elfman - Taking Woodstock (OST, La La Land Records) Christopher Lennertz - Identity Thief (OST, La La Land Records) Christopher Lennertz - Medal of Honor: Rising Sun (OST) Michael Giacchino - Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (OST, Varese Sarabande) Dave Holmes & Various - Ocean's 11 (OST, WB Records) Joel McNeely & Various - Hollywood '94 (Varese Sarabande) Joe Kraemer - Jack Reacher (OST, La La Land Records) John Williams - Born on the Fourth of July (OST, MCA Records)   Donate at least $20 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $500 goal:   John Barry - First Love (La La Land) Jerry Goldsmith - The Challenge (La La Land) Jerry Goldsmith - In Harm's Way (2009 Intrada edition) Jerry Goldsmith - The Red Pony (Varese) Alan Silvestri - Dutch (La La Land) Shirley Walker - Willard (La La Land) John Williams - Family Plot (Varese Sarabande) or, any of the above CDs if you prefer   Donate at least $30 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $750 goal:   James Horner - Gorky Park (OOP Kritzerland Edition) James Newton Howard - Outbreak (2CD, Varese Deluxe Edition) Laurence Rosenthal - Clash of the Titans (2CD, Intrada) John Williams - The Fury (2CD, La La Land) John Williams - Jane Eyre (OOP, La La Land) or, any of the above CDs if you prefer   Donate at least $50 and you will be entered into a pool to potentially win one of the following once we hit our $1,000 goal:   Jerry Fielding - The Wild Bunch (3CD, FSM) Ira Newborn - The Naked Gun trilogy (3CD, La La Land) Shirley Walker and Various - Batman: The Animated Series Volume 3 (4CD, La La Land) or, any of the above CDs if you prefer     All shipping will be paid by me to anywhere in the world!   I will pull names from a hat for each pool, and you get to pick whatever CD set you want if I pull your name!   To be eligible, leave your JWFan username in the comments area of your donation.  If you want to donate but not be in the running for a free CD, mention that in the comment.   Use this link or the link on the mainpage.       Thank you!   Jason, Ricard, and Andreas.
antovolk

Hans Zimmer's DUNKIRK

790 posts in this topic

40 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

The Cauliflower knows whereof he speaks.

 

He has often defended Giacchino. Be careful to not give too much credence to Blume. He seems to have a subtle but obvious Anti-Williams agenda. I reckon he's not far of from being a David Irving type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sharky said:

 

Is that how you see Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper or The Man-Machine? An anonymous product, a lifeless commodity?

 

No, then I think it's the opposite of that. Those that you mention are full of personality and character. I wish I could say the same about the sound that the Zimmer factory has created all these years ago. A lot of the music I hear sounds very similar and formulaic to me. Worse thing about it, I can identify the style but no longer the composer behind it. There was a time when this was different. I immediately knew when I heard Williams, Morricone, Fielding, Vangelis or Goldsmith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheUlyssesian said:

(Think of this as the equivalent of the auteur theory from film criticism applied to music.)

 

Which was rightly denounced as bullshit aeons ago.

Sharky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see no validity in the auteur theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A film made by hundreds of people with countless unplannable interferences and lucky accidents is the work of one auteur? It was invented by some french critics in the 50s and those they were citing roundly dismissed it as phooey (Welles, Ford etc.).

 

Williams is probably closer in the ballpark but for film directors it's baloney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the auteur's movie is baloney, then why does Armageddon not feel like a Woody Allen movie? What is making the distinction? According to you it can't be Woody Allen because he's only the director and a director can never be an auteur. Right? 

 

Is the auteur's movie a Chinese hoax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed! Often the style of the director is far more prominent than the writer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about Nolan, this is what he would chime in if he was a poster here:

 

Quote

Christopher Nolan: "I remember being very struck by Ridley Scott’s film Blade Runner and noticing or sort of analyzing the fact that I liked [Scott's] Alien, as well — two totally different films, different actors, different stories, really, but the same mind behind them. And that’s what I was sort of focused on, the idea of the director and how the director could have a controlling effect on the creative side of the film that’s indefinable, but important and something you kind of feel."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess both of you never actually read about the history of the auteur theory or what its implications were. 'Blade Runner' certainly isn't an 'auteur' movie just because it has distinctive characteristics of Ridley Scott, the problem being that nobody can really pinpoint what his ultimate influence on the elements you or me would cite as being distinctly his actually were - did he write the screenplay? Did he labor painstakingly over the much-lauded effect work and imagery (more so than those fx wizards)? Did Rutger Hauer make suggestions over his portrayal of the android that made this character ultimately more compelling than what was in the screenplay?

 

To enshrine all these crucial elements and more (the yellow barrels in 'Jaws', anyone?) as creative solo action of one guy is just idiotic, and that's what Bazin and Truffaut tried to say: 'Vertigo' is A HITCHCOCK MOVIE but then, it starts with a 3-minute sequence that is solely the effort of Saul Bass and Bernard Herrmann? Both had probably enough artistic ego to offer AH their own interpretations of his input, if there was any at all. 

TheGreyPilgrim likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The auteur theory was always a bit nebulously applied to American cinema because America cinema simply does not operate on the same terms. But it is very easily applied to the work of many European directors and beyond, film systems which allow much greater control to the film-maker. Only in Hollywood is making films by committee primarily a thing.

 

Take the films of von Trier and Haneke, they are so absolutely a projection of the worldview of their directors, so utterly singular to them that they are more or less literally the product of one mind. No one else can make a von Trier and Haneke movie and therefore the theory can be successfully applied to that. Film is a collaborative medium but the director has control over every single element. I definitely know this is true of Haneke because I have read and seen vast amounts of interviews with himself and his cast and crew and you just realize how much control he has. In a scene in Amour when Isabelle Huppert drinks tea, Haneke even directed when she drinks the tea, how big of a gulp she takes and how much tea she drinks. Everything you see in any frame of any Haneke film is absolutely and completely decided by him, including the hankerchief in an extra's pocket. Of course a director has helper but the auteur theory absolutely bares out.

 

Take von Trier. His films are absolutely bizarre in a lot of ways but take a film like Melancholia. It is the product of his mind entirely. No other director could have conceived it or made it or executed it as he did. Paul Bettany, an actor who mainly works in Hollywood films said he HATED working with von Trier in his masterpiece Dogville because he said it is NOT a collaboration. He said it is entirely von Trier's gig and he said you realize you are just a prop for the director. He tried to take some ideas to von Trier about his character and von Trier simply shut him down and told him to do as he was instructed. 

 

In American cinema, directors don't have as much control and stars are more powerful. Producers are more powerful too. But some auteurs do flourish. Take Wes Anderson or even Woody, two absolutely singular directors who make films that are unmistakably theres and could not be made by anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stefancos said:

 

He has often defended Giacchino. Be careful to not give too much credence to Blume. He seems to have a subtle but obvious Anti-Williams agenda. I reckon he's not far of from being a David Irving type.

 

STEFAN COSMAN DOES NOT HAVE A STRUGGLE! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible writer, that Haneke. I thought Das Weisse Band was some kind of classic German novel but Haneke wrote the whole thing from scratch.

TheUlyssesian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

In American cinema, directors don't have as much control and stars are more powerful. Producers are more powerful too. But some auteurs do flourish. Take Wes Anderson or even Woody, two absolutely singular directors who make films that are unmistakably theres and could not be made by anyone else.

 

But even for those, Woody gives actors leeway and is open to suggestions from his crew. I agree - certainly more - about van Trier and Haneke but even for them my argument stands: you or whoever claims 'that's van Trier!' do not really know how the elements came together. IMHO, a director who doesn't write the script, doesn't act and doesn't shoot/edit his films can't claim to be the sole 'auteur'. Also, it seems a rather asshole/narcissistic position.

Sharky and TheGreyPilgrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, publicist said:

 Did Rutger Hauer make suggestions over his portrayal of the android that made this character ultimately more compelling than what was in the screenplay?

 

 

Android?! What?! ;)

 

First of all, suggestions need a stamp of approval from the director. They talk those things over, you know. Secondly, if the contribution is not in the way of the overall storytelling and vision of the director then I don't see it as a hindrance of auteurship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

But even for those, Woody gives actors leeway and is open to suggestions from his crew. I agree - certainly more - about van Trier and Haneke but even for them my argument stands: you or whoever claims 'that's van Trier!' do not really know how the elements came together. IMHO, a director who doesn't write the script, doesn't act and doesn't shoot/edit his films can't claim to be the sole 'auteur'. Also, it seems a rather asshole/narcissistic position.

 

I don't think it's a narcissistic position. It is  attributing credit where it is due. We attribute some of the most monumental achievements of human thought and artistry to single persons, why not cinematic works too? War and Peace was written by one man, so was Ulysses. Sistine Chapel ceiling is attributed to one man too. So why not films?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they aren't done by one person and as far as we know, often ruled by all kinds of interferences that just makes the label impractical and misleading.

 

It's just another stupid label invented for film fans to hang their adoration on this one face when the term 'film director' pretty much sums it up. 

TheGreyPilgrim and Blumenkohl like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, publicist said:

Because they aren't done by one person and as far as we know, often ruled by all kinds of interferences that just makes the label impractical and misleading.

 

It's just another stupid label invented for film fans to hang their adoration on this one face when the term 'film director' pretty much sums it up. 

 

Publicist and I agree so rarely that when we do, it must be because whoever is arguing against him has lost his damned mind!

 

Comparing a single author novel with 800 crew member films and asking why we can't attribute films to one person. Jesus Christ. 

crumbs and TheGreyPilgrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, publicist said:

Again, who keeps track of who did what? You decide?

 

Yes? Read Nolan's quote again. He could clearly see that Alien and Blade Runner are from one and the same mind. That this kind of creative control was possible in film was an important realization to Nolan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is proof that Ridley Scott is an auteur? You completely confuse the (semantic) argument about a term with the realization that a film director imprints a movie he's directing (to wildly differing levels). How is that proof that he's the sole auteur? 

TheGreyPilgrim likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. But he knew who directed both films when he came to his realization.

 

My guess is if you blinded people and put those two films in front of someone they'd not come to the same realization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly think you can't independently judge if a film is directed by the same person?

 

Blinding people? What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Ridley Scott is a prime example that the auteur theory isn't getting you anywhere with the number of plot-driven commercial drivel he turned out over the years.

TheGreyPilgrim and Blumenkohl like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that Blumenthal demands evidence from other people but hasn't ever shown a tendency to back up his claims!

 

It's official. Blumenthal is David Irving. The Holocaust denier!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

You honestly think you can't independently judge if a film is directed by the same person?

 

Pub clearly said that this is possible but does not prove any fantasies of auteurism. 

 

Blumenkohl likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I can tell when Deakins is cinematographer. And I can tell when Ken Adam has been designing sets. I can tell when John Williams is composing.

 

But to then turn around and say this film is clearly the vision of one person...uh...defies logic. 

Sharky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also curious that on a forum devoted to a film composer such discussion is even possible. And i'm certain all these directors working with Williams over the years happily refrained from micromanaging him to make sure he can make his own contribution - after all, he's the musician. And even if there is some kind of briefing involved, the heart of the matter is that you hire talented people to serve AND enhance your vision. Paul Verhoeven could prod Jerry into improving 'Basic Instinct' but he never could've written anything approaching it. And i think most filmmakers would agree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But can you prove Mozart wrote The Magic Flute without any input from anyone? He couldnt play every instrument of the orchestra anyway.

Did Tolstoy write War and Peace completely and utterly on hos own. using no reference? Taking no advice?

 

I find your utter rejection of the theory rather all-sweeping and flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

I find your utter rejection of the theory rather all-sweeping and flawed.

 

And i find your (and Alex') insistence that it has any meaning or importance just assertive bullshit. You certainly have never expressed much interest in academic matters before, but now finally, Stefan has found his guiding light in a french caprice that was chic in the 50's and 60's? Come so on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that in some instances it might have validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

 

And i find your (and Alex') insistence that it has any meaning or importance just assertive bullshit. You certainly have never expressed much interest in academic matters before, but now finally, Stefan has found his guiding light in a french caprice that was chic in the 50's and 60's? Come so on...

 

Meaning? To enjoy the hand of Kubrick or Tarantino is all the meaning one really needs. Importance? It's there or not. And you either recognize it or you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True! As already stated the theory cannot be blanket applied to the entire medium but it is a potent lens through which you can explore the work of some film-makers including many working in Europe today.

 

Think about it, it is not that much different from books written by any artist in a way. It just seeks to see the artist as the author of his works and identify his signature and worldview.

Will and Hawmy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunkirk is looking to be another masterpiece from Christopher Nolan

Will likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now