Monday, October 20, 2008
Rambling Film Geeking Info Overload Obsession
Although some dispute it, Auteur Theory is fascinating. The idea that a director is the author of a film corresponds to the literal definition of cinematography: "writing in light."
This blurs the lines between good and bad films, and creates a multi-platform forum for analysis and admiration of technique. This is not to say there has never been a bad movie, but upon looking at things through eyes aimed like a (uber-pseudo)filmmaker, it becomes so different. To do so is to regard editing and mise-en-scene as means of constructing meaning, in combination with meticulous manipulation of time and space.
Classic Hollywood style undermines and defuses attention away from these decisions, stressing the narrative above all else. Because of historical conditioning to this "Invisible Style," it can initially be difficult to see past the narrative. It is hard in the first place for someone who writes, but harder still because of this dominant influence. The style evolved from the initial competition between the early films and 19th Century novels and theater, from which cinema took its form.
For an average viewer to become interested in film art, noticing the subtleties underlying filmmakers' decisions takes concentration and attention to detail. As much as I am beginning to notice, my eyes are still in training. Still, to recognize the smallest transition -- a wipe, a dissolve, a cut, a superimposition -- and rationalize why one might have been used over the other in a particular case is increasingly satisfying. Sometimes this seems arbitrary; the point is they are not, and this is especially true for Auteurs.
For example, it is no accident that Wes Anderson is an auteur; it can't be anymore so that he named Francios Truffaut (the French filmmaker and critic who defined Auteur theory in large part) a cultural hero.
Although some dispute it, Auteur Theory is fascinating. The idea that a director is the author of a film corresponds to the literal definition of cinematography: "writing in light."
This blurs the lines between good and bad films, and creates a multi-platform forum for analysis and admiration of technique. This is not to say there has never been a bad movie, but upon looking at things through eyes aimed like a (uber-pseudo)filmmaker, it becomes so different. To do so is to regard editing and mise-en-scene as means of constructing meaning, in combination with meticulous manipulation of time and space.
Classic Hollywood style undermines and defuses attention away from these decisions, stressing the narrative above all else. Because of historical conditioning to this "Invisible Style," it can initially be difficult to see past the narrative. It is hard in the first place for someone who writes, but harder still because of this dominant influence. The style evolved from the initial competition between the early films and 19th Century novels and theater, from which cinema took its form.
For an average viewer to become interested in film art, noticing the subtleties underlying filmmakers' decisions takes concentration and attention to detail. As much as I am beginning to notice, my eyes are still in training. Still, to recognize the smallest transition -- a wipe, a dissolve, a cut, a superimposition -- and rationalize why one might have been used over the other in a particular case is increasingly satisfying. Sometimes this seems arbitrary; the point is they are not, and this is especially true for Auteurs.
For example, it is no accident that Wes Anderson is an auteur; it can't be anymore so that he named Francios Truffaut (the French filmmaker and critic who defined Auteur theory in large part) a cultural hero.
Labels: College, Movies, Wes Anderson
0 Comments:
