Jump to content

dani devereux

Basic Member
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dani devereux

  • Birthday 04/18/1985

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Specialties
    painting, making films, eating and boyfriend. not all at the same time though...actually..theres a thought...

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. 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 I do think however that the theory is a bit outdated (seeing as the theory was proposed in the 1950s and developed throughout the 1960s but the ideas haven't really moved on since then.)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
  2. 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is it poss for a DP to be considered an atuer, especially one such as Alekan...or infact is the theory completely outdated and quite frankly a bit arrogant and selfish?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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
×
×
  • Create New...