To admire an artist for his own sake, although certainly a compliment, can also be a way of suggesting that he has no place in the larger scheme of thingsBut I'm not entirely sure what it means. I suppose it has something to do with the ideas and the work as separate from the artist-the-person.
In film, I've been searching for alternative theories to explain the filmmaking and film watching experience beyond the auteur theory because I find it very limited and limiting in how we think about movies. Or at least misused and certainly excessive in many film watching circles.
Here is a dismissive quote from Sarris in one article, that maybe deserves more weight:
"Obviously the auteur theory cannot explain every vagrant charm of the cinema."
But I'm still not behind the simple premise that bad directors will always make bad movies and good directors will always make good movies, or at the very least, movies worth paying attention to. We end up putting the cart before the horse in order for the theory to hold and ascribe importance to films that may not deserve it and neglecting others which may matter in some ways more. I just think ideas and stories matter on their own, beyond the force of personalities behind a film, not to mention a certain technical competence that comes from a myriad of forces, some arranged by the director, but others arranged by money and skills of hiring and good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment