>
> >might
> >just cast the most shameful discredit on auteurist speak imaginable,
> whys that? to say auteurist doesn't necessarily mean that its good.
>
Yes and no. There is often an implied praise, a sort of take-notice, in
the films associated with a particular auteur. I don't really care.
This is good and bad. A director is often a useful shorthand for
identifying a film (that's how I was using it), and often more -- style,
quality, theme . . .
Altman would be a perfect example. 80-90% of his Altmanesque films are
terrible, but I keep seeing them waiting for another gem, and once and a
while you get one.
This is too much discussed to repeat again.
I was just slamming Performance and praising Don't Look Now and casting
suspicion on how much of Roeg's reputation can be salvaged by his
disavowal of the former. I was probing for some defense and discussion
of his films that I haven't seen, and maybe for my (gulp) like (if
that's the right word) of these films.
> Nicolas Roeg has made some crazy pictures, in my book hes like Ken
> Russell,
> good and bad but always in a distinctive style
>
I'm not sure how consistent the style in his films is, though I haven't
given it much thought. What do you think is distinctively Roeg?
Aaron
|