Peter Sellers you bastard! You were Eddie Murphy before Eddie Murphy ever was.

I enjoyed the film and had some comments

– Loved that the opening song is “Try A Little Tenderness”

– Wanted to open up a debate as to why the film was shot in black and white. Hypothesis 1 – to mimic war newsreel. Hypothesis 2 – Black vs. White, US vs. Russia. Hypothesis 3 – Regression to dichromatic color scheme (if it can be referred to as such) says something about the reversion of man’s nature within the film. Hypothesis 4 – The elimination of any possibility other than Black or White simultaneously eliminates any middle ground and any way of reconciliation or making amends or coming to terms or of consideration between the two forces. So damn biased those two sides. End of hypotheses.

– Was wondering what people thought about the model airplane over the background footage of mountains, Russian landscape etc., purposely visually contrived? Or just a measure of the times?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true

When considering the merit of the Auteur Theory, it is important to consider a concrete example that supports the concept, namely, Quentin Tarantino.  Throughout his career, Tarantino has had complete control over films and his heavily involved in every aspect of filmmaking. As for his aesthetics, Tarantino has a unique stylistic tone that cannot easily be matched. Known for long, intense dialogue, humorously dramatic violence, and frequently nonlinear scripts, Tarantino undoubtedly has a signature mark. A well known common theme throughout his films is the revenge plot, exemplified in films such as Kill Bill, Inglorious Bastards, and Django Unchained, among others. Other recurring elements include: similar camera angles and shots (car trunk POV shots, mirror shots, close ups on lips and feet, etc.), the usage of black and white, violent awakenings, and dance scenes, Mexican standoffs, opening definitions, recurring props (samurai swords, record players, televisions) and more. Furthermore, Tarantino frequently uses the same cast members and technical crew. Some of the actors that have appeared in Tarantino films include Uma Therman, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Waltz, and Michael Madsen.  Tarantino himself has also had multiple cameos in his films, similar to Alfred Hitchcock in the past, but traditionally to a greater capacity.

Tarantino is able to produce significantly different and unique films each time he produces one while still maintaining common threads throughout, which not only elevates his status as both an outstanding director, screenwriter, and producer, but as an auteur as well. If looking for an example of a director being the true author of a film in support of the auteur theory, look no further than Quentin Tarantino.

The first time Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera I thought the film was just a test of new filmmaking techniques to show audiences the potential that this emerging medium had to offer, but after viewing this film for a second time I came to realize that Vertov’s creation is actually a representation of the journey that a filmmaker goes through during the shooting, editing, and showcasing process. Initially I read the shots of the moving train sequences and the mobile car shots simply as Vertov showing off new innovative shooting styles in an interesting way, but when you pay close attention to these scenes you realize that Vertov has interjected the filmmaker into these setting to show the dangers and obstacles that one must face, or be willing to face, in order to get the perfect shot. Vertov’s film is essential a film about the process of filmmaking, with each shot acting as a first hand account of daily life as seen through the kino-eye of Vertov’s camera. This becomes increasingly evident as the film goes on and the Man with the Movie Camera interjects himself more and more within the mise-en-scene and culminates with the shot of the filmmaker’s eye superimposed over the lens of the camera at the end of the film.

Another interesting aspect of Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera occurs during the scene in which Vertov reveals his film to be a fabrication of reality. One of these moments occurs in the opening shot in which the audience shuffles int the theater and we see the camera man loading film onto a camera. This shot is important because it serves as a reminder than the filmmaking process is much more complicated than simply picking up a camera and shooting: it consists of several steps and processes, such as editing and presenting it, that often get overlooked. By including this scene I believe Vertov is making a nod to all those individuals involved in the filmmaking process who don’t receive credit for their work and is acknowledging that the filmmaking process is not based on the work of one person, but is rather based on collaboration between a group of people who all share the same goal.

In the short section on Roland Barthes and his piece “Death of the Author,” Judith Mayne and her discussion on the role of the spectator came to mind, as I’m sure it did for most people. At the end of the insert, it states that “whereas the passive reader allows information to be absorbed without any conscious effort, the active reader will question and challenge the text. This allows an endless play of meaning; the text is no longer closed but instead remains open. The ‘death of the author’ leads to the ‘birth’ of the reader” (11). In her piece, Mayne argues that films can be read different between viewers and that readings can change over time. However, these readings still work within a specific framework, as the filmmaker still has a specific idea of what the film will look like and what message he wishes to convey. Thus, while readers can challenge a film’s ideological message or examine it from different angles. For example, looking at a film from a feminist perspective will most likely lend a different meaning than looking at it from a queer perspective. Nonetheless, the filmmaker still had a specific vision and ideology when making the film. Thus, I find the notion that the “death of an author” leads to the “birth of a reader” to be problematic. Instead, I would argue that understanding auteur theory lends itself to a smarter audience. Viewing a film as the work of an auteur alerts the viewer to the potential bias of that film. Either consciously or unconsciously, one will walk into a Tarantino film expecting certain things (mainly bloody and violent things) to occur. By being consciously aware of the style of a director, a viewer can be smarter and more critical about the message the film conveys. I don’t mean to make this sound like all viewers should be suspicious of all filmmakers based on style alone. Oftentimes the idea of “identifying bias” can have negative connotations. I think that it is important to identify bias, whether based on background or ideology, in order to gain an understanding of why a filmmaker made certain decisions in a piece of work.

When investigating this theory, can we really call certain directors the true author of the film? Do they handle the camera like a pen, controlling all aspects of the finished product. Honestly, the answer is yes and no.

Looking at music, rather than cinema to start – let’s use Bruce Springsteen as an example. Bruce is a singer, songwriter, guitarist, harmonica player and pianist. He does not play the saxophone, drums, bass or countless other instruments that appear in his music. However, the final song that we hear is perfected by Springsteen. Every single instrument is orchestrated by Springsteen to sound exactly how he wants it to. He would often spend months recording one song. Band members hated him, but respected his talent so much they couldnt walk away. He was such a perfectionist, that when his manager, Mike Appel played him the finalized version of the Born to Run Album, he chucked the record out the hotel window and told him he never wanted it released. Springsteen is an auteur of music. He perfects his musical vision and controls all elements, even if he isn’t actually capable of playing certain positions.

The same is true for many directors in Hollywood. I would like to argue that it is important for a director to write the screenplay for the film they direct in order to be considered an auteur, but there are exceptions to even that rule. Thus, I feel the only way to accurately define an auteur in the truest sense is to use Springsteen as an example. Does the director sit with the cinematographer, the editor, the actor, the crew, and the writer and have final authority over every single element? Are they able to work with each collaborating team member and instruct them to create his vision so perfectly that the final product is from the director’s mind (thus making his team members his employees rather than colleagues)? I think when a director has that kind of control, they really are an auteur. But there is more to it… they need to have distinction to their work. You know a fincher film when you see it. You know a Kubrick film, a Tarantino film, etc. But do you know a Michael Bay film? A Joss Whedon film? NO. Why? Because ever though those directors may have incredible authority for the final product, they have yet to distinguish themselves as having a recurring thematic aesthetic and tone to their work. Thus, I feel it is only fair to classify a director as an auteur when they meet the criteria above. To make matters more complicated, however, I think there are directors throughout history who have produced incredible films, consistently, that don’t have a DIRECT element that makes it truly theirs. My favorite example is Mike Nichols. He directed my favorite movie of all time… The Graduate. Is he an auteur filmmaker? I honestly might not classify him as such. Which is really interesting because he is one of the greatest creative talents in history (EGOT winner). So in conclusion, I think you can be a great director without necessarily being an auteur filmmaker and I think you can be an auteur filmmaker without necessarily being a great director.

As we discussed in class, auteur theory is multifaceted and flexible. To me, there isn’t one specific definition or list of characteristics that make someone fit into the framework of auteur theory; I think that is what makes it so complex and thought provoking. One thing that has been bugging me since our class discussion is the tension between interior meaning and possessing a body of work. Sarris, in both the summary of his earlier work found in Understanding Film Theory and the article we read in Critical Visions in Film Theory, touches on the need for films to have an interior meaning. According to Sarris, auteur theory can inform the interior meaning that is attributed to a film. The elements that make the film, especially those that create a specific technique and personal style, come together to inform the its interior meaning.

When thinking about interior meaning in relation to the importance of possessing a body of work, the question for me arises is: does interior meaning have to span a body of work? To me, the interior meaning refers to the deeper themes that the filmmaker is trying to explore. But say a filmmaker explores a specific theme in one film and decides to explore something completely different in his next film. Would people not perceive the filmmaker as an auteur? Is the exploration of a specific theme intrinsically tied to a signature style of a director? This seems limiting in terms of what a director can and can’t explore through storytelling.

To me, the director that breaks the convention of auteurism is David O’Russell. His films span a wide variety of themes. I must admit that I have seen a number of his films, but most of them I saw at a time when I wasn’t thinking very critically about film form and how it influences the meaning of a film. That being said, I believe that O’Russell has proven himself to be a talented director who is able to explore a number of themes as wide ranging as American hegemony, as seen in Three Kings, and as intimate as finding love, as seen in Silver Linings Playbook. I don’t see his films as connected in terms of interior meaning or personal visual style. But does that mean that he does not possess a certain amount of authorship over his films? The interior meanings in each of his films seem to exist within that one specific world he creates, they don’t seem to carry over from one film to the next. Does that mean that one cannot think of each of his films as “a David O’Russell film”?

While reading the auteur chapter, many directors came to mind: Alfred Hitchcock, Tim Burton, and Werner Herzog were some examples.  However, when I read the words “continuity” and “mise-en-scene,” I felt that Wes Anderson is one of those directors who really drives that point home.

I’m kind of a neat freak (read: I like to keep my stuff organized and clean), and I’ve related so much with the way Wes Anderson movies are filmed, because to me they are perfect (and symmetrical and spotless). Every movie of his that I have seen, has such continuity, that anyone who has every seen a Wes Anderson film could likely pick out another one. Each film of his has such a unique way of using voice overs, presenting characters, and creating a mise-en-scene that resonates so solely with the name Wes Anderson. What I find so amazing is that even his claymation film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, follows the exact same trend, and fits right into his auteurship.

Additionally, on pages 9-10 in Chapter 1, the author lays out a list of an eclectic ensemble that the director works with (cast, cinematographer, writer, and composer). To me, it seems that one reason that Wes Anderson achieves auteurship clearly, is because his team works so well together.

Andrew Sarris makes a point about how auteurship can mis-identify what the key component is of a film when he exemplifies how Esquire Magazine  had predicted that Two-Lane Black was to be successful in theaters but ended up failing to meet with positive reviews from critics and audiences; “the magazine sheepishly shifted the blame to director Monte Hellman, accusing him of being an auteur” (357).  So often I find that people crave the attention of being credible for a applaudable piece of work so it’s surprising to think that sometimes that same credibility can shift the other way too.

I find this effect interesting because of the value we put into actors, directors, and writers as those who provide quality content for the mass consumers.  Of all the celebrities who have been able to master their professions, it’s all far too often to not realize all those who haven’t been able to reach their level and have even been labeled as notoriously “bad” at what they do for a living.  Why this is interesting to me is because despite the uneven proportion of those who fail compared to those who succeed, so many people everyday make it their aspiration to become the best director, or best actor, or best writer, etc., while the odds are not ever in their favor.  This makes me wonder if the human condition is naturally a risk seeking phenomena and if there is some quality about those who have made it that sets them apart from those who have not.  Despite Hellman’s misplaced blame, as we later read, there had to be someone who had done something at some point to have caused the poor reviews, and by isolating that quality, one would be able to refine the process and replicate it to have a more positive outcome, in theory.

For me, The Man with a Movie Camera, was very, very meta about film making. Not only does the film draw attention to the fact that a man is walking around with a movie camera, but it also made me really think about the man filming the man with the movie camera. There were 2x cameras rolling at once usually.  It seemed to me to be such an homage to film making as a whole, instead of a documentary, but it had so many different things that relate back to that idea.

For me the machinery and the gears turning etc. seemed to have such a direct correlation to film making as a whole, and everything that goes into the process that is seemingly unnoticed, and everything that makes a film what it is. To me, it kind of all related back to the “film apparatus,” and how once the film becomes a film, you forget about all the parts, much like when a product becomes a product.