criterionforum.org

I was going to say what Mr. Sausage typed but he said it way more eloquently than I could. Theory when used in scientific context means that it's supported by evidence that's been provided by repeat testing. Germ Theory of Disease, The effects of gravity and most importantly the scariest of them all, evolution. The conflation of the word theory between science and the arts has created some issues as some people feel it's appropriate to dismiss empirical evidence because it's "Just a Theory". Not the case as I doubt many people will attempt to fly by jumping off a high rise to test gravity or will attempt to disprove germ theory by drinking bad water or using used needles.

Mr Sausage wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:00 pm I think he means that what you're talking about is relativism, ie. that judgements are relative to the individuals, situations, and frameworks in which something is being interpreted. Which is quite a bit different from the theory of relativity, or really scientific theories in general, which is/are not meant to be switched out for other theories based on taste, context, etc. The point of an established scientific theory is that it can withstand repeated testing and explains things better than any competing theories.

My point of comparison was much narrower as I indicated in my post. Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world. But they don't explain everything. There are cases where they don't work. There are competing theories. Not everyone buys every aspect of the theories. But they are good and useful theories.

Just like the auteur theory. It is one way to look at cinema. But it doesn't explain all cinema. There are cases when it doesn't work. There are competing theories of cinema. Not everyone buys every aspect of auteur theory. But it's a good and useful theory.

The point being - a theory is infact a theory - a construct, one way out of many of explaining something. And auteur theory is obviously a theory.

But that's just not true.

Nasir007 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:33 pm Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world.

I think they're ways to describe particle forces and the perception of gravity, respectively, so I'm not sure your metaphor really holds.

Nasir007 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:33 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:00 pm I think he means that what you're talking about is relativism, ie. that judgements are relative to the individuals, situations, and frameworks in which something is being interpreted. Which is quite a bit different from the theory of relativity, or really scientific theories in general, which is/are not meant to be switched out for other theories based on taste, context, etc. The point of an established scientific theory is that it can withstand repeated testing and explains things better than any competing theories.

My point of comparison was much narrower as I indicated in my post. Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world. But they don't explain everything. There are cases where they don't work. There are competing theories. Not everyone buys every aspect of the theories. But they are good and useful theories.

Just like the auteur theory. It is one way to look at cinema. But it doesn't explain all cinema. There are cases when it doesn't work. There are competing theories of cinema. Not everyone buys every aspect of auteur theory. But it's a good and useful theory.

The point being - a theory is infact a theory - a construct, one way out of many of explaining something. And auteur theory is obviously a theory.

Yes, you were right when you indicated that even scientific theories are not absolutes, and you're right to say that theories are constructs mean to explain the available evidence.

But collocating scientific theories with artistic ones like this kind of muddies things. Artistic theories are interpretive frameworks and admit of very little objective verification. Scientific theories are more rigorous, are held to a much higher standard (replicability, predictability), and are meant to supersede each other. One can trade out artistic theories based on taste, interest, context, popularity, or whim. Not so much with scientific theories. No one switches between the heliocentric and geocentric theories the way they might between Marxist and New Historicist theories, say. Scientific theories tend towards the best single explanation, not the interpretive bounty of many of them.

Science is mostly objective. Art is mostly subjective. To the extent the term 'theory' even applies to art, it would never be an apples to apples comparison if that is what people are seeking. A theory of art by the very nature of what it seeks to explain will be subjective. And such is the auteur theory.

Nasir007 wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:33 pmMy point of comparison was much narrower as I indicated in my post. Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world. But they don't explain everything. There are cases where they don't work. There are competing theories. Not everyone buys every aspect of the theories. But they are good and useful theories.

Just like the auteur theory. It is one way to look at cinema. But it doesn't explain all cinema. There are cases when it doesn't work. There are competing theories of cinema. Not everyone buys every aspect of auteur theory. But it's a good and useful theory.

The point being - a theory is infact a theory - a construct, one way out of many of explaining something. And auteur theory is obviously a theory.

I think what you actually mean is that your point of comparison was considerably more broad, not narrower. Because the more narrowly you apply the comparison, the more it breaks down. But in a broadest possible sense - e.g., all those things you mentioned are referred to as "theories" - well, I guess I have to admit that that's hard to argue with.

I think the above explanation of how the marvel system utilizes the auteur system is the best one. In my personal experience, the director-as-figurehead essence of the auteur system is a useful point of leverage and publicity to further consciously craft the narrative around a film/shows lifecycle (especially true for awardspornfilms). Many times a producer has spent years developing a script and hires a director relatively late, the director makes light suggestions, and then becomes the go to approvals decision maker for if that wall should be yellow or taupe, if that costume should be navy or black etc etc. crucially decisions that will cost real money have to go through the producers with the actual power but the director is very consciously promoted as an integral auteur of the film, and it’s true to an extent, but it’s also a role with inherent cause celeb that is necessarily exploited on behalf of the final product.

And a big part of why this director celeb centric system is still used in Hollywood is because “follow the money” directors are paid a lot, so with $$ goes the credit.

Star system where the star has some amount of input into their vehicles is similar.

So I wind up frequently thinking of director info like star info: as just another characteristic finely developed and packaged with the overall commercial product of the actual movie.

:-p

I don't think Hollywood cinema is general is a good example of auteur cinema. I would look to European cinema or other international cinema. I might even say auteur cinema in say France might be the majority of it rather than exception. It does not just arrive from most of them writing their own stuff but from the fact that they do to large extent control their movies more than Hollywood directors do. Final cut is I think I right enshrined in France for the director (I think though I am sure someone will correct me on this front just like on others).

Take someone like Haneke, even a speck of dust appear in a random frame is directed by him. They also have smaller crews, and smaller budgets which means they have more control.

Hollywood only truly allows the star directors absolute control and even then they might defer too much to the stars.

Someone like say Lars von Trier gives a rat's ass about what the actors thinks or feels. Hollywood is more accommodating of stars which dilutes the auteur sheen a little bit.

The auteur construct definitely serves us well as an analysis tool for cinema. But its more usefully applied for non-American cinema than American cinema.

Nasir007 wrote:I don't think Hollywood cinema is general is a good example of auteur cinema. I would look to European cinema or other international cinema.

Other than blatantly moving the goalposts I don’t disagree with any of your post all that much.

However your post did remind me of back in uni when I was taking a philosophy class and a cinema class at the same time. And when studying the Cahiers kiddos, I remember being suddenly struck that the entire ethos they espoused wasnt sincere but just just a cynical tactic using revolutionary’s tactics to empower and elevate themselves from their powerless serf status. :-p

Are you trying to wake up the dragon

FrauBlucher wrote:Are you trying to wake up the dragon

I don’t necessarily think that anymore, but to an undergrad making bad cognitive connections, it seemed like a Nietzschean will to power

movielocke wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:12 pmthe Cahiers kiddos

Someone should make this as a show like Jim Henson's Muppet Babies but with Truffaut, Godard, et al. instead of the Muppets, and Henri Langlois would only be shown from the waist down like Nanny.

Gregory wrote:

movielocke wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:12 pmthe Cahiers kiddos

Someone should make this as a show like Jim Henson's Muppet Babies but with Truffaut, Godard, et al. instead of the Muppets, and Henri Langlois would only be shown from the waist down like Nanny.

Marvel presents “the cineastes de Notre Tempes”

I thought these new comments were particularly strong

Martin Scorsese wrote:If I could push a button and erase them [Marvel movies] from the face of the earth, I would smash it so hard my hand would break. [...] I wish Kevin Feige had gotten sick in the 80s so that he could have taken some of that tainted Tylenol and spared us from this collection of caped schmucks invading our screens. [...] I don't wish death on any actor, but if you're playing a guy who wears a light-up suit and one of those little half mask things, and after filming you get hit by a bus or slip and fall in the shower and break your neck, that cinema karma s---'s on you, bro.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's take puts this whole thing to rest as far as I'm concerned.

It's strange that Scorsese doesn't view Marvel movies as "narrative films" given how much of their appeal relies on them all being part of one overarching narrative

That's brilliant, domino. I hope you decide to re-post in some Marvel fanatic site just for the spectacle of watching heads explode Kingsman-style amid a rabid chorus of "HOW DARE HE!!!!". If you do, lemme know.

Not a single one of the MCU films is a great film and even the best (for me, Doctor Strange and the first Guardians) still feel hamstrung by the requirements each of these films has to meet. I'll say upfront that superheroes are generally not for me though something like the first Incredibles does win me over. I think once Marvel and Disney allow a filmmaker to say "I won't give you what you think you want, I'll give you what you never realised you wanted" and really allow the film to think for itself and be itself without having to adhere to checklist stuff like ties to previous films and post-end credit scenes, and to be more adventurous in the visuals (to be fair, Doctor Strange does some of that and I hear Ragnarok isn't flatly lit like most of their other films), then they could be on to something that's an all-timer and not just falling in between pleasantly entertaining but already forgotten by the time you get to your car, and tedious.

So, I'm much more sympathetic to Scorsese's stance than the MCU crowd but he's also right in that we need to support the smaller, quieter films when they open in theaters.

Coppola joins the fray...

“When Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he’s right, because we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration. I don’t know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again,” Coppola explained. “Martin was kind when he said it’s not cinema. He didn’t say it’s despicable, which I just say it is.”

... story Here

I'm not a fan of the Marvel films either but I dont see how they are any different from the blockbuster/multiplex cinema put out by studios or Spielberg, Cameron, Lucas et al.

Or even many of the B-movies that they enjoy. To be fair though Spielberg and Lucas haven't actually said anything recently.

I saw something on Twitter about Coppola liking Black Panther

knives wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:14 pm Or even many of the B-movies that they enjoy. To be fair though Spielberg and Lucas haven't actually said anything recently.

Except, of course, those B-movies weren’t made on the computer. The technical aspect can’t be ignored, the process of making of a marvel movie is much different.