Truth be told I should not go to bat for an auteurist reading. I have grown disenchanted with how little of "the movies" I like.

...that is the thing I find harder to defend. It doesn't mean one has to be an auteur to be making good or even great work, though. That is I think the distinction made by JLG between cinema and the movies; the ensemble of a particular person or country's production vs the films in isolation.

I would agree that there is a lot to discover still and the politique may have outlived its initial charm as a weapon. It was one after all to make popular filmmakers discussed as artists (everyone has a paraph, which does not make everyone an artist). It has a nasty air of 50s bourgeoisie to it...

Were it so self-evident it would be beyond likes and dislikes. As for the rewards, we could hash out the strange case of Hitchcock, never exactly the same, in fact with a certain lack of distinctiveness, still in many pantheons. Ditto JLG.

Well, so be it. Auteurism is not a system, after all. By my lights, I could classify Lynch as an auteur. None of the others. It's not just that I like the guy, he has a coherent POV, style. Also, I like the guy.

youtu.be/-1G3BKfD1VI

An auteur would also bring, on top of a stamp, a consistent quality to his projects. So one would have to claim merit to intronize as an auteur, at least to my mind.

I got cornered recently for saying that I have a mild Zemeckis curiosity just not the BACK TO THE FUTURE shlock. The defenders go very far (Kehr did claim FORREST GUMP was an American Candide), sure. I'll contend he has displayed directing chops on a variety of projects, but i don't see an auteur.

I once spoke to a young researcher who eloquently said that scientific research was a cold passion. Something I never could impress to anyone else.

Duh.

youtu.be/w2MdePAU8ls

...THAT WE SEE... WITH OUR EYES CLOSED/OPEN.

I showed it to an acquaintance who noted the weird animal symbolism is crucial to this bit: like a bird, or a gibbon.

A bunch of bums! But they knew how to pose, and no-one knew how to rebuke them constructively. Some insulted (Deleuze), some gave the cold shoulder (Bourdieu). None could solve the critical problem: how to deal with impostors.

Before him, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault. Guys you may vehemently disagree with, but you can read them. After him, there Ferry and more recently Onfray or Enthoven, whose works I would not keep nearby even encased in protective lead.

"Look at Robert Graves—all that palaver about his Goddess, and all those third-rate poems."

Maurice Pialat, on Bertrand T.: "He does not know what he is doing."

No offense taken!

Yup!