jack
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by jack on Oct 17, 2006 12:08:02 GMT
hi people you alright? i'm jack and i've just come blinking and awed into the world of shane meadows like a new born foal looking for its mother to suckle on... sorry i think i stretched that metaphor a little too far anyhoo im doing A2 film at bilborough college in notts. Yes ,sigh, i'm another film student wanting to question you all on tedious, trivial, pretentious bullshit so that me and my acedemic friends can rub our beardless chins and say "well yes i do think midlands was a work of postmodern eclectic synergy" but... and heres the catch anyone answering this thread gets a free cookie (albeit a virtual one) question: is shane meadows an auteur director? an auteur is an author- the true creator of a film and has a very distinctive style see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur for more info The term auteur (French for author) is used to describe film directors (or, more rarely, producers or writers) who are considered to have a distinctive, recognizable vision, because they (a) repeatedly return to the same subject matter, (b) habitually address a particular psychological or moral theme, (c) employ a recurring style, or (d) demonstrate any combination of the above. In theory, an auteur's films are identifiable regardless of their genre. also, shane, if you havent been swallowed by the glitz and buzz of hollywood yet and are negotiating deals for Star Wars minus 1: Yoda on Campus or Die Hard V: Fire-eating Blindfolded on a Lake of Petrol or something it would be cool to hear from you too re: auteurism cheers humour me!! thank you Jack xxxxxx |
|
|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Oct 17, 2006 12:33:57 GMT
Yes i believe he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksherbert on Oct 17, 2006 15:25:40 GMT
I would definitely say so. All of his films, despite being about different subjects ultimately have similar themes.
Visually and stylistically he definitely has his own style, which is traceable from his first film to his latest.
Add to that the fact that he writes (or at least co-writes) all his own stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on Oct 17, 2006 17:42:50 GMT
He most certainly IS an auteur. I wish i knew about him when i did my auteur project at A2. I did Danny Boyle though, who's also awesome, and i got an A so.. meh!
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickCoyle on Oct 17, 2006 17:57:14 GMT
For the most part, "auteurism" is a bullshit concept when it comes to filmmaking. I don't recall many feature films that only have one name in the credits. But I suppose we are supposed to pretend "auteur" just means "has a unique voice/style". In that respect, Shane's as much an auteur as Kevin Smith or Martin Scorsese or David "it's clever because it doesn't make sense" Lynch, or any of the other filmmakers that get the auteur tag.
So, for the sake of ease, yes. He is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Oct 17, 2006 18:05:08 GMT
David "it's clever because it doesn't make sense" Lynch High five! Respect! |
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Oct 17, 2006 21:27:34 GMT
I definitely agree with what Dave 2 says about the recurring themes in Shane's films and his aesthetic style. Add to that, his films all take place in roughly the same part of the country and he gravitates around similar characters. I would go as far as to say that because he's fairly prolific, he's also one of the only British auteurs of his generation.
As for Lynch, I have to disagree, even though I completely respect Patrick and Dave's points of view. I know I have defended Lynch on here before and I will do it till doomsday; IMO, Lynch is the most interesting filmmaker working in American cinema. He' a genius. He's most definitely an auteur, also. I have utmost respect for Lynch as an artist and DUNE aside, he has never sold out; even his detractors can admit that - even if they hate his films.
Back to Shane - there are few contemporary filmmakers, especilly young cats, that I really admire but he is most definitely one of them. I anticipate each new film as a major event and I do not say that lightly. I just wish the powers that be were falling over themselves to work with him, so that the gaps between each project could be significantly shorter.
Still, less is more I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Oct 18, 2006 9:03:52 GMT
do you not like anything lynch does then? i always think even if you dont like his films its hard not to respect his style and vision, ive yet to meet anyone who can create such moods and feelings from seemingly inanimate objects such as flickering lights or the infamous hanging traffic lights.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickCoyle on Oct 18, 2006 9:34:13 GMT
I like parts of Blue Velvet, but on the whole, I just don't "get" David Lynch's films. I know that's kind of the point, but I just vastly prefer films that make sense... In my opinion, the best kind of films are the ones that leave you thinking afterwards, but still have a coherent plot and resolution - which I think is much harder to do than a film that's knowingly weird and aims to confuse. Lynch is talented, no doubt, but he's a gimmick director (much like M Night Shyamamamamalalalalalamamama... Also an auteur?) - and I personally despise the gimmick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Oct 18, 2006 10:25:26 GMT
Lynch is talented, no doubt, but he's a gimmick director (much like M Night Shyamamamamalalalalalamamama... Also an auteur?) - and I personally despise the gimmick. Now there's a guy that really tries to be different. I really do have a problem with Shyamalan's films; very, very poor, IMO. I though SIXTH SENSE was good and SIGNS was alright but UNBREAKABLE and THE VILLAGE were terrible. Lynch doesn't try to be weird, for weird's sake - I know it's easy to write him off for doing exactly that, but his films are a lot deeper and he is constatly challenging narrative form. His films do make sense in the respect that hsi most troublesome films (ERASERHEAD, LOST HIGHWAY and MULHOLLAND DRIVE) have a dream-like ambience and manage to encapsulate the experience of having a nightmare; experience being a key word as his films are more of an experience than they are a conventional, mapped out narrative. Both Lost Highway and MULHOLLAND DRIVE have plots and do make sense but you must remember, plot is second to the experience and try not to over-analyse each film's meaning; let them wash over you. I cannot think of any other filmmaker who manages to make consitstantly frightening films. I wish I could elaborate further but I am at work at the moment and it would take a lot more of my time to do so. Anyway, this thread is about Shane; and it seems to have gone off course a little. |
|
|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Oct 18, 2006 11:29:01 GMT
my hat is doffed to you yet again comp.
did you see brick paul? what'd ya think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Oct 18, 2006 11:58:08 GMT
my hat is doffed to you yet again comp. did you see brick paul? what'd ya think? I really liked BRICK and it's one of the few films I have seen that has the flavour of a Lynch film, without aping it. Another film that's of a similar type is Tim Hunter's RIVER'S EDGE; if you've not seen it, make sure you do. It's excellent. |
|
|
|
Post by jtrodreigez on Oct 18, 2006 12:16:37 GMT
rivers edge? old 80s film with crispin glover, keanu, dennis hopper? my memory is sketchy but ive seen it ages ago, ill have to check it out again.
whats your fav lynch film then? hard to choose but for me id have to say blue velvet even though im really into the madness of lost highway and to a lesser extent mulholland. I have to say that i dont count fire walk with me as a film i just lump it in with the series which i love maybe more than all his films and i tend to overlook the straight staory as i love it but its not really fair to put it up against the others as they live in totally different worlds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Oct 18, 2006 12:43:42 GMT
|
|
jack
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by jack on Oct 18, 2006 15:01:07 GMT
thanks for your help guys it would be good to hear from a few other people too- maybe i should have done Lynch as opposed to shane after reading some of the posts!
some very good thoughtful posts i think the term auteur has become quite ambiguous. the french have a very strict interpretation of it which is probably the most faithful and yanks and the brits have different intepretations with varying levels of fidelity to the original concept.
As for the point made by Patrick Coyle it is maybe true that a director unlike a painter or writer is aided and abetted by hundreds of other people (depending of the scale of the film) but take someone like Tim Burton for example who uses mostly the same crew for each film (inclueding the same composer, Elfman for the always recognisable score) he has built up working relationships with the crew that allows him to have more control over the projects he does than a director who has only just met his DOP a month before photography. I noticed that Shane used the same DOP for England as for DMS- Danny Cohen maybe theres other people i havent cross referenced the names but i'm sure a few will crop up.
please post more replies on your thoughts of shane as an auteur
would you say DMS is typical Shane Meadows?
there is also the fact Shane draws on personal experience for his films- just watch the 'making of' on the DMS dvd plus untold other stories which have fed into or inspired his work
any thoughts on that?
|
|
