"a film by" thoughts

[untamed_aggression]

I keep writer/director and editor/cinematography. If I do anything else, I'll go uncredited.

[kriegslust]

As conceited as it is, I think that a director can be justified by putting his own name on a film. A notion of the director as auteur has become commonplace, and certainly it can often gift a film a greater appeal to the public; an example of which could be the ridiculously titled Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. Naturally, with such a wide selection of vampire and Dracula films attaching an established director's name to the title will give it more pulling power. Nowadays many directors have a greater input into creating a film than they might have, say, 50 years ago. In this sense, it'd be hard to argue against any of Kubrick's films featuring his name in the title; even if he hadn't held the camera or written the script the film is recognisably his.

The director has become a symbol of film-making, and is often judged to be the personification of his films. The question shouldn't be about whether a director is conceited for putting his own name on a film, but whether we're right to have created such a cult of auteurship in the first place. In the Weimar Republic's golden days of expressionist cinema, the writers of the films were seen as the auteur; in some modern films the Producer is credited in the title. Who knows, maybe ILM will be the first digital effects auteur in film history...

Personally, I don't care for it. My films don't even end with credits anymore, they just seem like a load of backslapping bollocks to me.

[The Cavity]

Y'know, since we always blame the director when a film sucks, it seems like this is a rather futile argument.

Unless that movie is Gigli.

That just plain sucked.

Is Martin Breast a real person or is he like a bunch of producers taped together?

[Tard]

Or you can discuss Alan Smithee... continue...

[GREATwarEAGLE]

You can argue that those who strictly stand by "a film by John Doe" have a superiority complex.

And those who protest have an inferiority complex.

Either way I think it's a silly argument. Credits differ project to project and we can only speculate about those projects which we aren't involved in.

Yes, not just one man makes a film. It is a collaborative effort. Perhaps here's one way to look at it:

BARNES & NOBLE
They cant put every single employee in their name.

[thelaughingduck2001]

well, Rodriguez usually only has 'a Film By' if he did write and direct (like, as was pointed out, Dusk Till Dawn, he didn't write it)

In Total Film a couple of months ago, the question was asked-

Why wasn't the Faculty called 'A Film By Robert Rodriguez'.

A. As Kevin Williamson wrote it, I just wasn't comfortable with duping the audience (or something along those lines)

I don't think Martin Scorsese has ever called a film 'By Martin Scorsese', I just think it says Directed By Martin Scorsese. But then, he doesn't alwasy write.

[The Cavity]

Your right. It's a "Martin Scorcese Picture."

[thelaughingduck2001]

I think (and I mean this in all seriousness) that it's all to do with Scorsese's Catholic uprbinging. He's said himself that he feels guilty for taking credit for everything-Maybe that's why he never calls it 'A Film By Martin Scorsese' because he recognises that it's not just his film, it's an effort between crew, actors and what have you.

Tarantino however could employ the worst actors possible (including himself) and as long as they could deliver the script, it would be a good film (discounting ym best Friend's Birthday obviously-He's moved on since then)

[Brainmuncher]

I think it is perfectly fine, if John Doe directed AND wrote it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wtf?
One of things that drew me into film was my fascination with the myriad of work that has to go into it. Film is a collaboration. It is just as much the composers as the editors as the writers as the producers as the directors.
You could extend this point to the extremity of including runners etc in as well, but you get the basic notion.

[Alex]

The reason to slap the director's name on a film is to build a track record so that it becomes easier and easier to get financing and distribution for future projects.