The Golden Globes

For the films of 2011
Post Reply
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by anonymous1980 »

Who is going to do the Golden Globes prediction contest this year?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Big Magilla »

The Golden Globes has one big problem with its little venue.

“It’s a nightmare every year,” said an anonymous studio publicity chief in an interview with Vulture. “But this year is worse than ever, because this year, there are so many ensembles nominated. The Help’s ensemble is like, fifteen people. And then there’s TV shows like Glee, Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire. Instead of a year where it’s a show like The Good Wife, where it’s just Julianna Margulies, it’s a mess.”

Seats are so scarce that, according to Vulture’s report, even the lead actress of a best picture nominee will be unable to attend. Along with 50/50 writer and executive producer Will Reiser, actress Anna Kendrick found that she would be unable to attend the show in support of her film.

Though a spokesperson Judd Apatow assures that he will be in attendance, the Bridesmaids producer allegedly threatened to bail on the ceremony if all seven of his fellow producers were not in attendance
.

A spokesperson for the HFPA responded to Vulture’s report with an e-mail stating: “As the show is held in the Beverly Hilton, we have far fewer tickets than other awards shows held at larger venues. The Globes are an intimate event and in keeping with that, we sometimes have limited tickets, especially in years like this when there are indeed a number of ensemble casts. It is always our goal to accommodate as many people associated with the nominations in the room but we do have a finite number of seats. We are not always able to accommodate significant others, co-producers and such. As much as we would love to have everyone associated with these accomplished films and television shows in the room, we just don’t have the seating for everyone involved… Unless we start hanging tables from the rafters, it will always be an in-demand ticket.”

A representative did not immediately return The Hollywood Reporter’s request for comment.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Sabin »

rolotomasi99 wrote
I knew screenplays often went through changes before they made it to the screen (CHINATOWN being a famous example), but I still thought of the screenwriter as a major part of the filmmaking process. It probably did not help that my dad got me a subscription to Creative Screenwriting Magazine. They made it seem like screenwriters were basically the architects of the film while the directors were the building foreman, just making sure everyone was doing their job correctly. You can see why I tend to place screenwriters higher on the food chain then you say they deserve.
In that the screenwriters draw up the blueprint, yes. And they end up making a lot of blueprints.
rolotomasi99 wrote
Whenever someone around here kept dismissing the importance of the screenwriter, I would think about the SUNSET BOULEVARD line, “Audiences don't know somebody sits down and writes a picture. They think the actors make it up as they go along.” I figured you were saying the actors and director make it up as they go along, and you were totally ignoring the contributions of the writer. Now I see you are saying the process is much more collaborative than that.
Here's something else to think about. There is a lot of truth to that line in Sunset Boulevard, but it's less true now than then because movies of that era cost so much less and were made for the most part as products of a machine. Today for a movie to reach the theaters, they end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars so everyone involved has to protect their investment. The screenwriter being the most socially maladroit person involved in the process usually is the one who might take the film off into an "interesting" direction that fails to appeal to every single person who bought a ticket to see The Smurfs. The phrase "protecting the investment" is used a lot, which is the same as saying "How can we make this appeal to everybody?"
rolotomasi99 wrote
Just out of curiosity, how do you personally determine which films have good screenplays? I usually judge a screenplay by its dialogue, its characters, and its plot. Some films excel in one area over the other, while some do well in all three. Now, though, it seems like the screenwriter deserves very little credit for these things. Do you feel the Oscar for writing should go to both the screenwriter and the director, or just the screenwriter? Again, thank you for educating me on the way movies are made. I clearly had a very skewed idea of who contributed what to the process.
These are two different questions. The first is basically how much does the film live up to the premise? Does it explore its premise as much as it could? Plot, character, and dialogue are all intertwined...

RE: If you define a screenwriter's job as being the person solely responsible for the events that you see on the screen, then yeah. The little Gold Man is going to get a little crowded with names. Actors improvise their lines all the time. But in that you may be disillusioned that it all doesn't happen in a huddled corner and then filmed accordingly as you thought, it doesn't mean that the writer doesn't write everything you love about your favorite movie. Sometimes s/he does! Most movies that end up getting nominated for writing awards (and thinking about writing in terms of what we honor is where things get tricky) that aren't written and directed by the same person are shepherded into production by somebody who read something, loved it, and wanted to preserve it. And that's pretty special when that happens.
"How's the despair?"
bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by bizarre »

rolotomasi99 wrote:Thank you for your illuminating answer to my many questions. You mentioning Charlie Kaufman is perfect since that is exactly who I was thinking of when I was making my arguments. I kept wondering how you could say Kaufman wrote BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, HUMAN NATURE, ADAPTATION, CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, and SYNECHDOCHE, NEW YORK; but he was only the true author of SYNECHDOCHE, NEW YORK since he directed that film. To me, all those movies, even the two adaptations, began in the mind of Charlie Kaufman. He was the visionary, and it was the job of various directors to visualize and dramatize what he created. Now I see Kaufman is the exception to the rule.
Film is a collaborative process but people often have a knee-jerk reaction to 'auteur theory' and overemphasise the extent to which that collaboration a) provides the ideas and themes integral to the project and b) affects the look and feel of the finished product. In an independent film with an engaged director, s/he will often supervise the editing, s/he will of course shoot the film, and s/he will interpret the screenplay as they see fit. In a studio production company producers will have the power to say yes/no unless the director is renowned enough to have "right of final cut" (which SHOULD be a Miranda right as far as I'm concerned, but it isn't). A screenwriter working in Hollywood has a far more demeaning job than most people know. Far from every screenplay being a labour of love they will be hired to churn out scripts for board meeting story ideas, with deadlines and most certainly without final say. Script doctors can be called in to "fix" parts of a script, rewrites can be ordered, scenes can be shuffled around or omitted entirely. Unless the screenwriter takes it into their own hands and directs their own work, possibly even produces it (much easier when sourcing funding from a grant or film fund than from a studio), the director's translation of the words onto the screen - with all their biases and interpretations - and the company producers' say-so is what will matter. What you see in your head when you write a film script is NOT going to be what you will see on the screen when the director is done with it (unless, of course, you are also directing it).

Screenwriters have one of the most important jobs in film production but people, especially those attached to "authorlessness" theories of film production (obviously these people have never been on a film set or at least not one independently financed), often romanticise the level at which the screenwriter's input counts. Being a 'professional screenwriter' often means having to divorce yourself from your creation and give it into hands that may and most likely will alter it. If you want full control you'll need to be prepared to wear many hats production-wise.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sabin wrote:What Hossein Amini wants doesn't really matter. It matters what Aaron Sorkin and Charlie Kaufman want, but that's about it. That's the problem with your theory about screenwriters. It only works like that theoretically.
Thank you for your illuminating answer to my many questions. You mentioning Charlie Kaufman is perfect since that is exactly who I was thinking of when I was making my arguments. I kept wondering how you could say Kaufman wrote BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, HUMAN NATURE, ADAPTATION, CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, and SYNECHDOCHE, NEW YORK; but he was only the true author of SYNECHDOCHE, NEW YORK since he directed that film. To me, all those movies, even the two adaptations, began in the mind of Charlie Kaufman. He was the visionary, and it was the job of various directors to visualize and dramatize what he created. Now I see Kaufman is the exception to the rule.

When I was in high school I had the silly fantasy of being a screenwriter. I loved the movies and was socially awkward, so obviously the ideal job for me was writing. I figured I could spend all my time writing by myself, and then sell my brilliant screenplay to a studio and see it made into a film. Since I had no talent, this fantasy never panned out. Still, it left me with an even greater admiration for those tasked with the difficult job of writing a movie.

I knew screenplays often went through changes before they made it to the screen (CHINATOWN being a famous example), but I still thought of the screenwriter as a major part of the filmmaking process. It probably did not help that my dad got me a subscription to Creative Screenwriting Magazine. They made it seem like screenwriters were basically the architects of the film while the directors were the building foreman, just making sure everyone was doing their job correctly. You can see why I tend to place screenwriters higher on the food chain then you say they deserve.

Whenever someone around here kept dismissing the importance of the screenwriter, I would think about the SUNSET BOULEVARD line, “Audiences don't know somebody sits down and writes a picture. They think the actors make it up as they go along.” I figured you were saying the actors and director make it up as they go along, and you were totally ignoring the contributions of the writer. Now I see you are saying the process is much more collaborative than that.

Just out of curiosity, how do you personally determine which films have good screenplays? I usually judge a screenplay by its dialogue, its characters, and its plot. Some films excel in one area over the other, while some do well in all three. Now, though, it seems like the screenwriter deserves very little credit for these things. Do you feel the Oscar for writing should go to both the screenwriter and the director, or just the screenwriter? Again, thank you for educating me on the way movies are made. I clearly had a very skewed idea of who contributed what to the process.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Sabin »

rolotomasi99 wrote
Are you saying Ryan Gosling is co-director of the film DRIVE? I would imagine all actors have a role in shaping their character, but you seem to be saying Gosling had a role in shaping the entire film. Amazing! You clearly know about more this film than I do, so I will take your word on this. Charming, hot, brilliant actor, and a visionary director. I love this man!
Let's say that an actor has optioned a book. He likes a character, he has an image in his head of the project. He brings on a director and talks about his idea of the project with him. They both agree on a writer. They tell the writer about the project they want to do, and what they want from the adaptation. The writer tells them his ideas, suggestions, and proposed changes. Maybe they agree, maybe they don't. He takes a stab at the screenplay.

This scenario is not Drive but it happens all the time. How can the writer be considered the First Author of the project?

That is the difficulty that we are having here. You have an idea of how a lot of projects work and for the most part that is the way fewer projects get made than any other way. Again: at least in this country, in this period of time. Now, Ryan Gosling did not personally option the book, but he was brought on when (I think) Ben Affleck dropped out, and the film could no longer be a viable $80+ million film. He then brought on Nicholas Winding Refn. I do not know when Hossein Amini was brought on, before or after this change, but what I do know is that Ryan Gosling and Nicolas Winding Refn both read his screenplay and agreed that much more could be done with much less, and they basically re-imagined the film as more of a tone poem.

(CORRECTION: it was a proposed Hugh Jackman project with Neil Marshall as the director. Hossein Amini worked with them on adapting the book, which was apparently a very difficult task because the book was filled with flashbacks. He made it a linear structure of complex events not entirely seen on screen. When Jackman and Marshall left the project, Ryan Gosling was brought on, he brought on Refn, and they both were less interested by the structure than the things listed above. And so they changed everything.)

Is Ryan Gosling a co-director? Absolutely not. He is an actor collaborating with a director to work towards a project that interests them. Them being the director and the actor, by far the most important people on this project. What Hossein Amini wants doesn't really matter. It matters what Aaron Sorkin and Charlie Kaufman want, but that's about it. That's the problem with your theory about screenwriters. It only works like that theoretically.

rolotomasi99 wrote
Very interesting. So why hire writers at all? It would be like hiring someone to design sets for your movie, pay them, and then have the director re-design all the sets. I am not talking about the director and the set designer working together to decide the final look of the sets, but to have two completely different visions of what the sets should look like.
Two reasons: 1) because there is a union that protects the work done by writers for decades now, and 2) because writing isn't really fun. Or let me amend that: making a series of changes based on what the director or actor or producer wants isn't really fun. Most directors would exhaust themselves if they had to do it. It allows them to keep a clearer vision.
rolotomasi99 wrote
You reference how some directors are visionary while others are not. Does visionary just mean a strong and distinct visual style? For example, would BLACK SWAN have visionary directing while WINTER'S BONE would not? Kevin Smith is the sole author of most of his films, but most people say he has no visual panache as a director. Does that mean he is not visionary? I am not arguing with you or anything, just curious about your definition of that word.
When I am referring to a visionary, I am talking about a person who has a vision of how the film should be based on his genius, his vision.

When Tony Scott does a film, in addition to wanting a giant paycheck, he will often approach a film (like Domino) and do something visual that interests him that might not be anything that the screenwriter was interested in to the point where the finished result looks nothing like what Richard Kelly envisioned. Sometimes Tony Scott will do a project because he wants to explore a new set of lenses or something. He is allowed to be artistic and far out and indulge his genius. Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that Tony Scott is attached to film a book, they bring on a writer, he's told yes, no, this, that, do it. He can't turn in something radically different. For every Josh Olsen (the screenwriter of A History of Violence who turned in something drastically different than the graphic novel) where it pays off to be a work for hire genius, there are hundreds more where they never work again.

Let's look at Black Swan. Darren Aronofsky wanted to film ballet imagery. It's something he was fascinated with. He was in talks to do a screenplay called The Understudy written by Andres Heinz and then began to envision it as a film about ballet, which The Understudy was not. It was about broadway actors. But he liked it. So he brought on other writers, Mark Heyman and then John McLaughlin or perhaps the other way around, not in tandem but one after another, to more fully turn the screenplay into what conformed to his vision of ballet. During the press tours for Black Swan you can't find a man less super comfortable with what he is doing there than Andres Heinz who may have been the first author of the film but whose vision of the film is as unrepresented on the film (not just in that it wasn't about ballet, but everything save I think character names) than anyone shy of craft services.

That is to reiterate my point. What you're talking about by way of visionary is a whole different conversation, but that kind of conversation is precisely why we are having a mild miscommunication - because it neglects the business of the thing.
"How's the despair?"
Dien
Graduate
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:49 am

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Dien »

rolotomasi99 wrote:You reference how some directors are visionary while others are not. Does visionary just mean a strong and distinct visual style? For example, would BLACK SWAN have visionary directing while WINTER'S BONE would not? Kevin Smith is the sole author of most of his films, but most people say he has no visual panache as a director. Does that mean he is not visionary? I am not arguing with you or anything, just curious about your definition of that word.
Clerks and Chasing Amy would be the closest. The former exuded that underground atmosphere of the 90's alternative subculture and the latter had a perverse intimacy that complimented his screenplay. They didn't push any boundaries, but they are visually distincitve. None of his other films had this. I would called him a competent comedy director/writer with two good movies but not a visionary.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sabin wrote:Drive began when Hossein Amini was hired to adapt the book, and then Refn and Gosling in tandem re-adapted the book for their own vision, one that (again, by all accounts) doesn't really reflect Amini's.
Are you saying Ryan Gosling is co-director of the film DRIVE? I would imagine all actors have a role in shaping their character, but you seem to be saying Gosling had a role in shaping the entire film. Amazing! You clearly know about more this film than I do, so I will take your word on this. Charming, hot, brilliant actor, and a visionary director. I love this man!
Sabin wrote:Most directors are essentially the screenwriters of the films that you seen. Some of them try to take screenwriting credit and that's why there is the Writer's Guild of America, which allows screenwriters to take credit on the basis of the work that they do and whether or not subsequent "writers" add (not take away and strip down) enough elements (characters, storylines, etc) to be considered writers of the film.
Very interesting. So why hire writers at all? It would be like hiring someone to design sets for your movie, pay them, and then have the director re-design all the sets. I am not talking about the director and the set designer working together to decide the final look of the sets, but to have two completely different visions of what the sets should look like.

If a studio knows the director is always going to write their own movie, why hire a screenwriter in the first place? Particularly on adaptations of books where everything is already laid out for you and you pretty much just use what you want?

I am not being snarky. I sincerely do not understand how Hollywood works.
Sabin wrote:I don't think that being a crowd-pleaser excludes it from greatness.
Oh, I assumed you did because you called it a crowd-pleaser and then said it had nothing incredibly significant on its mind like A ROOM WITH A VIEW and GOSFORD PARK. Since I do not think of those movies as "message" films like THE PIANIST or MILK, I thought you were saying SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE has no interest in being a great film like those two did. I clearly misunderstood what you were saying.
Sabin wrote:The director is allowed to be a visionary.
Sabin wrote:I think Shakespeare in Love is a pretty great movie. And because I clearly enjoy the film's energy/tone more than you, I think the directing is special while not being visionary.
Sabin wrote:I think Shakespeare in Love is kinda great. I don't think a film needs to have visionary direction to be great. Sometimes it's enough that the direction is just what is needed.
You reference how some directors are visionary while others are not. Does visionary just mean a strong and distinct visual style? For example, would BLACK SWAN have visionary directing while WINTER'S BONE would not? Kevin Smith is the sole author of most of his films, but most people say he has no visual panache as a director. Does that mean he is not visionary? I am not arguing with you or anything, just curious about your definition of that word.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Greg »

Sabin wrote:The number of spec sales that see the screen these days is alarmingly small.
Actually, with so many films being franchise sequels, and so many non-sequels being adaptations of novels/non-fiction books/comic books/plays/tv shows/video games, the number of original scripts, spec or not, that see the screen these days is alarmingly small.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Okri »

I was massively disappointed with everything about Shakespeare in Love. I think Tom Stoppard is a GENIUS, but not this time.
bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by bizarre »

Sabin wrote:Most directors are essentially the screenwriters of the films that you seen. Some of them try to take screenwriting credit and that's why there is the Writer's Guild of America, which allows screenwriters to take credit on the basis of the work that they do and whether or not subsequent "writers" add (not take away and strip down) enough elements (characters, storylines, etc)
to be considered writers of the film - which is bullshit, because most films are shaped by what is taken away, not by what is added. I don't want to rabbit hole too much, but if we are talking about the film Drive, then Hossein Amini can absolutely not be considered The First Author of the project. If we are to play this game, The First Author (of work for hire projects, not writer/director projects or spec projects) is almost always the producer. The writer that is hired is a functionary (or he is fired). The director is allowed to be a visionary.
Oh lord, this topic of debate bores me... but I'll just say that I totally agree with the above.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Sabin »

rolotomasi99 wrote
I feel authorship of a film belongs to who it starts with, but you seem to think it belongs to who has final say on the shape of the film. However, sometimes that is the director, other times that is the producer or the head of the studio. Hell, even the MPAA has influence on the final cut of Hollywood films when they suggest what needs to be removed to receive a certain rating...

...I agree with you that Refn had a part in shaping the narrative of DRIVE, but the structure was already set by Aimini (who was adapting what had been set by James Sallis). Unless Refn did what Malick did on THE TREE OF LIFE, Amini is the author of the film DRIVE.
In tandem, these two posts kind of prove my point. Drive began when Hossein Amini was hired to adapt the book, and then Refn and Gosling in tandem re-adapted the book for their own vision, one that (again, by all accounts) doesn't really reflect Amini's. I mean if we're to truly lionize He Who is The First Author of The Film, that's more Sallis than Amini, isn't it? Because The adaptation we're seeing reflects the vision of Refn and Gosling far more than any vision of Amini's. You write that "the structure was already set by Amini" and I guess what I'm trying to say is that assuming we are talking about the same group of films that you and I both watch within the same cultural pool, you are attributing too much credit to the screenwriters as The First Authors.

Most directors are essentially the screenwriters of the films that you seen. Some of them try to take screenwriting credit and that's why there is the Writer's Guild of America, which allows screenwriters to take credit on the basis of the work that they do and whether or not subsequent "writers" add (not take away and strip down) enough elements (characters, storylines, etc)
to be considered writers of the film - which is bullshit, because most films are shaped by what is taken away, not by what is added. I don't want to rabbit hole too much, but if we are talking about the film Drive, then Hossein Amini can absolutely not be considered The First Author of the project. If we are to play this game, The First Author (of work for hire projects, not writer/director projects or spec projects) is almost always the producer. The writer that is hired is a functionary (or he is fired). The director is allowed to be a visionary.

rolotomasi99 wrote
As for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, this whole discussion started because you called it an "incredible film." I simply commented on how I did not think anyone here would consider it incredible. I thought you were saying SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is an all-around amazing piece of cinema, but now you seem to be saying it was just a crowd pleasing comedy with nothing significant on its mind. You say ultimately we just disagree, but it seems you agree 90% with me. The screenplay is great, the performances are good but a little broad, it is pretty to look at, and the directing was nothing special.
I don't think that being a crowd-pleaser excludes it from greatness. I think Shakespeare in Love is a pretty great movie. And because I clearly enjoy the film's energy/tone more than you, I think the directing is special while not being visionary. Anytime all the performances are pretty wonderful (which I think they are) and the film has an energy that works (which I think it does), that is a reflection on very strong directing.

I'm not saying I want John Madden to be nominated for an Academy Award, and I think that's where we're having an issue. Because this is a group devoted to discussing Academy Awards (and thus film), we pay attention to things like who is nominated for their excellence in film. So in 1998 we see Roberto Benigni, John Madden, Terrence Malick, Steven Spielberg, and Peter Weir. Who's the odd man out? It's not Roberto Benigni. It's John Madden! Because who is he? We don't know what his movies look and feel like. I could probably guess the other four. I mean, with Benigni, it'd be easy. He'd be in it. And if I saw the other four, I could definitely tell you which one was directed by Peter Weir's. Based on his track record, yes, the John Madden one would probably be the boring one. When you line them up, John Madden doesn't look very special. That's the peril of lining them up.

Of course, it's also a factor that you don't love Shakespeare in Love like I do. I'll just repeat: I think Shakespeare in Love is kinda great. I don't think a film needs to have visionary direction to be great. Sometimes it's enough that the direction is just what is needed.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sabin wrote:If I was looking to poke holes through your theory that the screenwriter is the author of the films I would mention that these are writer/directors working outside the studio. I'm mainly speaking of what happens in this country, but literally - literally! - the only way to go to a movie and see what the screenwriter truly intended is to watch a film written and directed by the same person. Citing directors who work through unconventional means doesn't really do the trick. If a screenwriter does work for hire, he works towards the vision of the producer. The producer then hires a director on board to get good performances and make it pretty. If a screenwriter has written something on spec, well, then it would certainly be nice if the director who gets the screenplay sticks to the vision a little bit.
So.........

The producer is the author of a movie? In Hollywood that is probably true. After all, TRANSFORMERS, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, NATIONAL TREASURE, PRINCE OF PERSIA, G-FORCE, DEJA VU, and KING ARTHUR were all directed by different men -- yet, they all seemed to reflect the vision of producer Jerry Bruckheimer. The screenwriters and directors on those films were no more the authors than the cinematographers or editors.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sabin wrote:You see, here is the big problem with the notion of "screenplay" vs. "screenwriting". Hossein Amini didn't write the narrative that you saw on the screen. Hossein Aimini wrote something that was much more verbal and plot heavy. Refn wanted something more stripped down and Gosling realized that he could convey much more with simply a look, and Gosling and Refn essentially reconceived the film after Amini's work was long done. The screenplay is what you start with. The director basically does whatever he wants with it afterwards. That's not always the case, but in most of the films that you've seen it is.
Which is why it is often said a film is "written" three times: First with the screenplay, second when it is being shot, and third when it is being edited. Which is why some directors actually do much of that themselves.

I feel authorship of a film belongs to who it starts with, but you seem to think it belongs to who has final say on the shape of the film. However, sometimes that is the director, other times that is the producer or the head of the studio. Hell, even the MPAA has influence on the final cut of Hollywood films when they suggest what needs to be removed to receive a certain rating.

I agree with you that Refn had a part in shaping the narrative of DRIVE, but the structure was already set by Aimini (who was adapting what had been set by James Sallis). Unless Refn did what Malick did on THE TREE OF LIFE, Amini is the author of the film DRIVE.

As for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, this whole discussion started because you called it an "incredible film." I simply commented on how I did not think anyone here would consider it incredible. I thought you were saying SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is an all-around amazing piece of cinema, but now you seem to be saying it was just a crowd pleasing comedy with nothing significant on its mind. You say ultimately we just disagree, but it seems you agree 90% with me. The screenplay is great, the performances are good but a little broad, it is pretty to look at, and the directing was nothing special.

We both enjoyed it, but I enjoyed it despite it not being great while you seemed to enjoy it because it was not great. If it was up to me, every film -- whether it was a drama, comedy, action, sci-fi, horror, etc. -- would be great. However, I still like films that just miss greatness. Heck, I even have some guilty pleasures which are far from great. I just think it is important to distinguish whether I am praising a film because it was well made or because I enjoyed it. Many times those two things overlap, but sometimes they do not. For example, I enjoyed ATTACK THE BLOCK more than SHAME, but I thought SHAME was superior in quality.

I was not saying you could not adore SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, I just wanted clarification on whether you thought it was an all around incredibly well made film. From your subsequent comments, it does not seem like you think it is an incredible film but you still like it anyways. Me too! In fact, I own it on DVD and have seen it more times than some of my all time favorite films. It is one of those fun, pretty films you can just turn on and start smiling immediately. It is just an all around happy and fun film.
Last edited by rolotomasi99 on Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Golden Globes

Post by Sonic Youth »

Lots of people better than myself have poked holes in your theory long before the theory of auteurism was born. It's precisely this theory, no matter how logically sound your presentation, that gave rise to auteurism. I'll leave it to others to fight this battle for the nth time, and say that although I may be convinced that the director may not always be the auteur of his/her film, I will never be convinced that the director never is.

Coincidentally, I'm reading the book "Maximum City" about Mumbai and I just finished the section detailing how present-day Bollwyood movies are "written"... by committee. No way are the screenwriters the auteur of those films. It's difficult enough to nail down a screenplay at all before shooting.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Post Reply

Return to “84th Predictions and Precursors”