henri alekan

[dani devereux]

hello everyone!

I would really appreciate your views on the question I have to pose:

Is it possible for a DP such as Henri Alekan to be considered an auteur?

I am writing a really important essay on this and I would value anyone elses opinion.

I am looking at both sides of the arguement, one to argue the possibilities of how he could be considered one and the other how collaboration between DP and director is essential for the DP to even be allowed creative freedom, therefore suggesting that the theory of authorship could then be disproved.

Please give your opinions!!!

Thanks very much

x

[Dan Salzmann]

What is the "theory of authorship"?

[David Claessen]

hello everyone!

I would really appreciate your views on the question I have to pose:

Is it possible for a DP such as Henri Alekan to be considered an auteur?

I am writing a really important essay on this and I would value anyone elses opinion.

I am looking at both sides of the arguement, one to argue the possibilities of how he could be considered one and the other how collaboration between DP and director is essential for the DP to even be allowed creative freedom, therefore suggesting that the theory of authorship could then be disproved.

Please give your opinions!!!

Thanks very much

x

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Dani,

 

Curious to read your article on the auteurship of cinematography. You mentioned 'creative freedom' which I believe doesn't exist. There is 'creative responsibility', which a DP is hired for. The ends of the spectrum holds those who are hired to 'register' performances' and/or 'illuminate' set and locations quickly with no frills or specific photographic charm. Then there are DP's such as Henri Alekan, who I had the privelage to work with as his operater on his 107th film A Strange Love Affair, who are literaly asked to create a enviroment, a feeling that evokes emotions much closer to watching a painting or reading a book. He gave us the joy of watching light fall elegantly. He would sit on set and with his left hand, a stroke had made his right hand unreliable, and draw the lighting and the image, not like we see in the ASC or IPG Mags as a floor plan but as the image we we're to create with colour pensils and all. We would make our own filtration with soft gel cut outs, spray glue, an waterbase paint. What you see in his images is created in camera. The image was never base in reality but always in emotion. There has never been a director, in my opinion, who could ever imagine the strength of the final picture as he would create for them. There for he is one of the few who qualify for the certification of auteurship of Cinematography.

 

Just an opinion,

 

dc

[dani devereux]

hello there!

just a quick thankyou on your opinion of Henri. He is definately one of the greats in my opinion and its fascintating to hear from someone who has actually worked with him, it gives a good basis for your opinion. I am also doing fine art as part of my degree and I found when seeing Alekans work on screen as though (like you said in your responce) I was observing a beautiful painting. DPs have often been described as people who can paint with light, and he is a master of this craft. I would be very grateful for any more opinions if you have any on Alekan, or around the subject itself. Thankyou for your responce.

[Guest fstop]

I really need to check this guy's work out- Any recommendations?

 

Thanks for the headsup! :)

[Wendell_Greene]

I really need to check this guy's work out- Any recommendations?

 

Thanks for the headsup! :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, check out his work on:

 

Wim Wenders b]"Wings of Desires" [/b]

 

Check out this interview with Henri Alekan

 

 

Jean Cocteau's "Beauty and The Beast"

 

There's a great article about this 1946 film in the September 1997 issue of American Cinematographer, outlining the in camera effects and the creative tension between Alekan and director Jean Cocteau

 

 

And I can't read French but the images in his book 'Des lumières et des ombres' are incredible

[dani devereux]

well the theory of authorship is a bit complicated and to be honest a bit long winded. in basic terms it means that to be considered an auteur, there is a certain list of criteria that the person in question must have, such as a body of work to refer to, certain characteristics that immediately makes their work recognisable, they must have a message behind their work that is repeated etc. there are huge debates about these criteria and initially the theory was meant to elevate the director to a sort of artist status, but unfortunately the theory dismisses the processes behind a good director such as collaboration etc. thats why i'm asking the question is it poss for a DP to be considered an atuer, especially one such as Alekan...or infact is the theory completely outdated and quite frankly a bit arrogant and selfish?

xx

[Dan Salzmann]

In a lot of ways the definition of "authorship" can be applied to food at McDonalds. Their stuff is "recognisable", "repeated", studied,etc. It is not good food.

I feel that this obsession with authorship is not only outdated, arrogant and selfish but it is a serious handicap to French cinema in alot of ways.

Quasi-intellectual masturbation mixed with the ever-present fanatical obsession with position in a theoretical intellectual hierarchy-what a waste of time and energy!

That being said I feel that a great DP or director is much more than just a good technician.

Every great chef depends on collaborators. How many of them raise their own vegetables and livestock? Make their own utensils? Etc.

I had the opportunity to briefly meet Henri Alekan several years ago and was impressed by his warmth and a glow in his eyes.

His book is very very good and a good excuse to buy a French dictionary and get through it.

[dani devereux]

hey there dan,

with all respect, the authorship theory was not just thought up to piss people off. I find it quite funny that the work being discussed in terms of authorship for many years, such as Welles, Renoir, Hitchcock, Ford and many others, are now being described by yourself as a maccy d's meal. I do think however that the theory is a bit outdated (seeing as the theory was proposed in the 1950s and developed throughout the 1960s but the ideas haven't really moved on since then.) So what is the relevance of the theory now?

A director whose creative imprint on a film is strongly felt can be considered an auteur. So when you watch the film you know immediately through the style who directed it etc. So I thought, well surely Alekan could be considered for this theory? Assuming of course every composition we see on screen is from his own creative vision.

The work of an auteur should be as recognisable as the creator of any other work of art, a Van gogh painting, or a Beethoven symphony etc, they have certain stylistic recourances that make the work distinctively their own.

So, up for a happy meal anyone? maybe the free toy this week will be a mona lisa in every box.

(sorry, Dan)

xx

[pkbissen]

do you have to write an authorship paper? personally, i liked VF Perkins theory of film who wrote "Film as Film." basically, Perkins sees film as a means of communication between the audience and the filmmakers (director, DP, editor, screenwriter). you judge the filmmaker based on the choices that he or she made and how effectively these choices communicate with the audience. it's hard to tell what choices a filmmaker has made because no film is the work of one man. you can distinguish what choices a filmmaker has made through first hand accounts (interviews, DVD commentary, etc) and by looking at different films he or she worked on.

 

anyway, i never liked authorship theory because film is collaborative. also, i've always thought it is more interesting to look at a film from VF Perkin's POV. what choices did the film/filmmaker make? what was the intent of a specific choice? what was their effect on the audience, story, etc.? did this set of choices communicate the right feeling or would other choices have worked better? i guess the point is that Perkins thought to evaluate a filmmaker you needed to think through his thought process looking at how effectively his choices communicated an intended effect on the audience or story.

 

i don't know if that helps at all, but VF Perkins' theory of film gave me a critical way to evaluate film without any dogmas about how film is this or that.

[Dan Salzmann]

Film is a collaborative medium. As a DP I have had suggestions made to me and have made suggestions to people in various departments.

Great men (and women) are often belittled by people trying to put them into bullshit categories.

This is a common French phenomena that just wastes time.

I never said that the "auteur theory" was thought up to piss people off.

I also never compared the work of Hitchcock, Welles, Renoir etc. to a McDonalds meal.

I simply stated that the criteria that YOU said defined an auteur could be applied to a McDonalds meal.

Marcel Duchamp already dealt with the Mona Lisa and did a great job of it.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi

i agree at any point with Mr Salzman

 

many verry famous directors and DP does teribles comercials nowadays and you'll never guess who his behind this pasta or soup or lipstick advertise. (great peaple to meet anyway)

i think i'ts amazing how those many "authors" does always have the same look wathever comercial they do. No thanks to colorists and tv producers

a happy meal will always look the same

maybe i am off topic where you talking about cinema or peaple who does it?