Jump to content

Is Gordon Willis an Auteur?


Jon Tubb

Recommended Posts

Would anybody class Gordon Willis as an 'Auteur'?

I know that it is usually the director that is considered an auteur but if anybody has any views it would be a great help.

I am submitting an essay on a comparison of willis and Kaminski and i am currently discussing Auteurism.

I wouldnt consider Kaminski to be an auteur but I am a little undecided about Willis?

Please Help.

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think any DP is an auteur. They might be artists, definitely craftsmen and

perhaps even geniuses. But as long as they're not instigators, realisers of projects,

then they can't be auteurs. Thing is, I don't think directors can be auteurs either.

At least not as long as they're working for a producer. A film is a collaboration of

all involved. Take away one and you have no film. Maybe if you make your own little

films by yourself, then you can call yourself an auteur.

 

That said, I happen to think that Gordon is an absolute genius. There are many brilliant

DP's, but for me, he's probably the best. No one is as tight with his compositions as

Gordon. No one was so ahead of his time with lighting as him. He kind of invented

modern filmlighting. Dared to be simple, dared to be dark. Klute, Godfather and many

more all look like they were shot yesterday. Just timeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's probably a mistake to use the concept of auterism to discuss cinematography since it is by its nature a collaboration with the director -- if anything, it disproves the whole concept of the autuer theory!

 

Certainly Willis was a stylistic pioneer and maverick -- DP's like he, Storaro, Wexler, Hall did a lot to affect the look of movies in the 1970's, although they would admit they were building on the ideas of Italian Neorealism, the French New Wave, Cinema Verite, etc.

 

While Kaminski is certain stylistically bold and influential, I'm not sure he has turned the tide of cinematography the way that Willis and Storaro did.

 

What Willis and Storaro share is a strongly intellectual and thematic approach to their material, less instinctual than someone like Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Willis' films are exceptionally shot but do you not think his work is somewhat more recognisable than say Kaminski?? I'm not trying to put him down at all, but most of his work has the same low key, dark and shadowy atmospheres. Do you think he only chose films of a similar genre, maybe genres that fit his style?

 

Is anyone familiar with the DP Malik Hassan Sayeed? I love the film 'He Got Game' with Denzel Washington and think that it looks brilliant. i only wish i could re-create that look on DV. If anyone can recommend any other films by him it would be a great help.

 

JT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you feel that a persons age determines their views on good cinematography?

I am 21 and feel that the Godfather is absolutely amazing, however people on my course who were younger than me would argue that Saving Private Ryan and more modern films such as Minority Report are 'better' (if you can use that term).

 

Surely it isn't possible to say who is the better DP?

 

Can you say that use of Post production, colour correction, bleach bypasses etc are good cinematography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find Nykvist to be the greatest living Cinematographer. Willis is second. To address the matter of Willis claming the title of Auteur, I consider that to be a correct assumption. His work, as the works of all great cinematographers had, revolved around an iconoclast director whose work was strengthened by a concise visual style. Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters is a masterpeice because Di Palma knew how to work the magic of an urban setting. He also knew to paint the grass yellow when Antonioni made the progressives look as formalists do. To watch Coppola's films before Willis is to see a noisy image, later refined and quieted by Willis, and serving of the drama. One would, in the most respectful and historical sense, call cinematographers Co-Auteurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Is anyone familiar with the DP Malik Hassan Sayeed?... If anyone can recommend any other films by him it would be a great help.

Malik Hassan Sayeed is brillant. He is a very much in demand commercial director/DP who's signed with Ridley Scott's company, RSA. If you haven't done so, you should check out his cinematograpy in Spike Lee "Clockers" and read about it in the October 1995 issue of American Cinematographer.

 

 

I know Willis' films are exceptionally shot but do you not think his work is somewhat more recognisable than say Kaminski?? I'm not trying to put him down at all, but most of his work has the same low key, dark and shadowy atmospheres.

 

Well who doesn't know the "Godfather"? Who doesn't recognize Willis' groundbreaking use of top light? I can't improve upon the posts by either Adam or David, but I have to agree and add to them by saying that Gordon Willis' work is still very revelant today.

 

"Klute" is one of my favorite films and in fact it was mentioned by Darius Khondji, A.F.C. A.S.C. as being one of the films that he watched as inspiration for his work with David Fincher on "Se7en" . And not all of his work is as as you said, "low key, dark and shadowy" I encourage you to watch some of the films he lensed for Woody Allen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Kaminski is great. He just hasn't wooed me in the same way as Willis. And Willis

was 30 years ahead of Kaminski as well. Just take a look at Manhattan for Woody

Allen that Willis shot in B/W anamorphic. Just look at the composition on the cover

to begin with - that's just a killer! And the movie is just full of gutsy lighting and

framing. Not all of it is brilliant, of course (and who am I to judge anyway?), but

damn near.

 

Wendell, I so agree. Klute has to be one of the best shot and lit movies ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

To get a sense of Willis' range, look at "Pennies from Heaven".

 

I can see, of course, the greater appeal of Kaminski to a younger crowd who grew up on the slicker lighting of modern commercials and music videos. Willis, to my thinking, is more subtle and refined (like Sven Nykvist), which may not be of interest to younger viewers (yet). Not a right or wrong thing, just like Wagner is not better or worse than The Beatles, nor Van Gough better or worse than Rembrandt.

 

You also have to look at this from a historical perspective -- Willis' lighting was as striking to viewers in the 1970's compared to the studio lighting that preceded him as Kaminski's or Richardson's lighting is striking today. But Willis' strength was how that lighting and contrast worked in conjunction with his framing, which had a precision that is missing in much of the frenzied, energetic work of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that "Pennies From Heaven" was the same year as "The Purple Rose of Cairo." Both were set during the Great Depression of the 1930s and had some similar thematic elements. But both look vastly different from one another and are equally brilliant works. While one can say that they generally recognize Willis' work, that work still has an amazingly broad range. "Zelig" also takes place in the same period and it certainly looks nothing like anything else Willis ever did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it important to know if someone is an "auteur" or not?

The proof is in the pudding, or more correctly on the screen.

Gordon Willis put heart, soul, mind and hands into the films he worked on and the results speak for themselves.

IMHO, "auteurism" is one of the most absolutely masturbatory concepts that among other thngs slows down incredibly film production in France where lots of people are more infatuated with this than actually making the movie.

Let's not lose the plot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for all of your help.

It is a bit of a bummer living over here (UK) as many of you might know the difference in DVD releases is staggering. many films by woody allen are hard to find (let alone to buy) or rent on region 2 and I'm a bit sceptical about buying films on the net that i Haven't seen, especially now that i have recently graduated and have hardly any money.

oh well thats life!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...