#autheurs

[polldermodel]

beste nederlandse kinderboekenauteur?

francine oomen

carry slee

tonke dragt

thea beckman

paul van loon

jacques vriens

op je vergeet-

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@themousefromfantasyland @piterelizabethdevries @thealmightyemprex @the-blue-fairie @professorlehnsherr-almashy @stickypersonaearthquake

Do you know the conflict between Autheur Theory vs Art as Collaboration?

Basically, Autheur Theory began between French critics and filmmakers, as a way of analyzing the film industry: originally films were clearly a collaboration, and it was common to have more than one director on the same project until the final edit of the film was reached (Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz being famous examples).

But the Autheur Theory presented and popularized the idea that, to have the same prestige as, for example, a classic novel, it is necessary to have a figure defined as "the Author of the film", and the chosen figure was the director.

And this vision became dominant from the 60s onwards, when a wave of directors grew up who exercised strong control over films, and whose names became the brand that attracted people to watch. Before, you went to watch a film expecting to be entertained by the fiction, and to see the actors and characters who were the Stars. You would go by Judy Garland, Gary Cooper, Vivien Leigh, Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, etc. From the 60s onwards, you will see films by director Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Copolla, etc.

And there was the simplified idea that "the director is a visionary genius who is a champion against the oppression of producers and studios who care only about money." But decades passed, and after some box office failures of films made using the Autheur model (Heaven's Gate directed Michael Cimino being the most famous), the cult of Autheur began to be questioned, as it denied the fact the role of all the team collaborating to make a film, often this personality cult of the director encourages abuse practices in the name of the "vision of genius", the fact that just because the director has a style and trademarks common to his films, it does not This means that it is automatically good, just that it repeats themes and subjects, the study of the history of cinema showing that Autheur itself is also a brand to be sold, and that it is not the "great champion against the studios", but in fact, he becomes prominent because when he makes a film that is successful and the studios see that it makes a profit, the studio will support him to do what he wants in the hope of always replicating that success, and the prestige of his name is it works as marketing in the same way that the face of the Actor who is a Star works.

I bring up this discussion because I think a similar conflict applies to the American comics industry: American society is obsessed with the idea of ​​the Great Man, the Visionary Genius. Originally, artists drew the character, and then he became part of the publishing house (Detective Comics, Fox, Timely, etc.).

Those who originally created them continued drawing for a while, then went to work on other titles, and then another artist would take care of drawing the Phantom, Mandrake, Flash Gordon, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Society of Justice of America, the Blue Beetle, Namor the Sub-Mariner, Captain America. Another artist could expand the universe and increase the lore and create a new villain, but he did not compete to erase what the previous artist had built and only establish what their idea was as "the true version".

It was the old collaboration model in which the name of the artist didn't matter, what mattered was telling a good story about those characters. Not everything was rosy, obviously: with the publisher being the owner of the character, the artists were often screwed and left in the cold. poverty. Siegel and Shuster suffered from poverty after creating Superman, and it was the fact that other cartoonists came together to demand decent pay that helped them in their old age.

But narratively, there was a focus on cohesion and collaboration.

But in the 60s, as in the film industry, things changed: the idea of ​​control and authorship grew.

And now you had Marvel (former Timely) selling the image of Stan Lee as the creator of his entire Universe, Steve Ditko defending the view that the Artist should be considered the author of the work, names like Alan Moore, Frank Miller and John Byrne becoming stars, and it all comes back to the idea that the Author should have all the control.

And when a name and work become popular and make money, remember what companies do: they let you do whatever you want:

You are the Autheur.

And readers bought into that idea: His redesign and rewrite of Daredevil and graphic novels The Dark Knight Returns and Year One made people for decades venerate Frank Miller to the point of denying everything that came before as the "version wrong" of the characters and that Miller "fixed" them, no one heard of Swamp Thing and Miracle Man until Alan Moore's name was on the cover, no one remembers that one day Sandman was a masked guy with a sleeping gas gun before being portrayed as the embodiment of the concept of Dreams in the graphic novels of a certain accused of sexual abuse Neil Gaiman.

Now, imagine you are an artist or writer who becomes known as a star in the comic book industry, whose name becomes prestigious and helps sell the magazine, and then you are given the job of drawing an existing character.

Everyone worships you, your word is considered law, you are a genius who can do no wrong, and then you think:

"Why do I have to follow rules, because I have to think about what has already been established as a characteristic of that character, when I can use it to represent what is MY artistic VISION of what a hero SHOULD be?"

And as a result. ..comic crossover events where a bunch of characters die horribly or turn evil for no reason, weddings you've followed developing for decades erased from continuity, characters committing horrible acts without any idea on how to examine the consequences.

We, as the public, created the cult of the genius, the comics industry responded to this by thinking it was a viable economic model in which to profit, and art suffered in the process.

Recognizing the importance of collaboration is the solution to dealing with this problem.

And there are other comic industries outside the US where collaboration, rather than competition between "visions of genius", is encouraged:

In France, more people came to draw Asterix and Obelix after the passing of Gossiny and Uderzo, building the stories based on the work they established.

In Brazil, Maurício de Souza's publishing house produces both Classica Mônica and Friends and Monica's Teen Manga series magazines with several artists and scriptwriters working together as graphics novels in which individual artists reinterpret characters, but without wanting to impose their interpretation as the only correct one.

And the Japanese manga industry has the model of one or two artists working on a story with a beginning, middle and end, which allows other artists, often fans, to develop sequels or spin offs that expand or complement the previous title, without ever trying to erase what was done before.

[neixins]

can’t read too much of siren queen at once lest i explode into a million tiny pieces due to how incredible it is

[alpaca-clouds]

Media Production: The Autheur

If I talk about the creative industry, I always feel like I need to talk about the Autheur. Does this have to do with the thing I spoke about yesterday? Absolutely. But it is still something I want to speak about seperately - and oh boy, it is also something that within film studies and among critics is a very controversial topic. As such, let me please start this by stating: I have opinions on this, but I also want to talk about the concept in general.

In movie making there is this concept: The Autheur filmmaker. Autheur of course is French for Author. And this is very much related with what I talked about yesterday: Novel writers are the one kind of creative person, who will usually have a lot of control over whether or not their creative vision is in the final product (a book). Sure, there might be editors and publishers, but compared to a movie maker, tv show creator, or game developer, the author usually has to take way less people into account for what they are doing, than anyone else.

And within film studies, certain folks love the autheur filmmater. The legendary autheur filmmaker is the kind of guy, who has full control over their film production. They are a writer and director, who have a specific creative vision and get that vision done. Sure, there are other people involved - actors, cinematographers, technicians, costume and set dressers, effect people and so on - but generally speaking, the autheur filmmater is in control over their project. There is nothing happening in production, pre-production or post-production, that they have not signed off on.

Of course, this gets increasingly harder to pull off, the more complex the idea gets. Because the more complex it gets, the more expensive a movie projects will become as well. And the more expensive it becomes, the more investors usually will want to have a "seat at the table" and give their input. Because they want a return on investment. Meaning: Your movie has to make back its budget + marketing + a bit more, so that the investors can get a payout. Barely anyone is gonna invest in a movie just so that you, the hyperthetical writer and director, can just get the creative fullfillment of seeing your vision brought to life.

Back when I first learned about Autheur theory - and the controversial discussion on whether or not a movie director ever can be an Autheur these days - a lot of people pointed out, that Tommy Wiseau might be one of the very few actual autheurs. Because the budget of The Room was a mere 6 million dollars, which in movie terms is not a whole lot, and was reportedly produced mostly out of private funds of Wiseau and some of his friends, giving him almost full control of the movie.

Though, of course, the assessment that he is one of the few Autheurs is not quite right. While, yes, most movies most people have ever heard about had a budget that was bigger than 10 million - and most likely in fact bigger than 30 million dollars, most movies ever produced in fact do have budgets of 5 million or less. Because, yes, in sheer numbers, there are way, way more indie movies produced around the world, than blockbusters.

My personal favorite genre of movies is horror films - and most horror films do have budgets of 5 million or less. I think the cheapest horror film I ever watched had not even a budget of 100 000 - though that was mostly because it had been made by a bunch of film students with most people involved not getting paid, so that "the budget" mostly was used up for shooting locations, materials, and catering.

Generally speaking though: There are more movies made that are financed either because the main creative involved has a rich friend, or through the "movie production funds" of various countries. Those, yes, usually come with some strings attached (here in Germany, for example, a lot of state funded movies need to reference Germany or even specific cities - which is why a lot of stuff produced here is either contemporary comedy, or some sort of historical drama), usually the executive producers involved are less of a hassle, allowing for more creative freedom.

However, most people do not speak about those movies - that rarely get to be known outside of the country they were produced in - as the works of some "autheur" director. Which yes, would be a nice point to talk about cultural imperialism, and creatives often being forced to either produce English media or at least an English dub to be even considered in general media studies, but this is not the topic for today.

So instead let's talk just about those names usually associated with the label of Autheur.

That are people like Christorpher Nolan, Francis Ford Coppola, Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and so on. Now, again, something could be said about all of them being white cishet men, but that is once more a discussion for another day. For now I will just say: Yeah, they do have more influence over their projects than most directors. At times because of their name and contacts, and because they have producers that trust them.

However: If you have followed the entire drama of Coppola trying to get Megalopolis made, you will have to realize... Even those people are not complete autheurs. Sure, when they pitch a movie that realistically could make money, they will have an easier time to get that movie made. And for some of them producers will also know what to expect. Both in terms of how the production is gonna look, who the audience will be, how much budget will be needed, and how much box office the movie is going to make. At least Nolan, Anderson, and Tarantino are fairly predictable in this regard. Nolan will cost more than the others, but also has a bigger audience than the others, so usually will get that budget. But that does not mean there are no strings attached.

Which brings me to Megalopolis. Because Coppola had wanted to make that movie his way forever. And it was going to be expensive, and... Other than Nolan, he does not come with that automatic audience. Especially not for a project that is as much OUT THERE as Megalopolis. (I have not seen the movie, given that it is not being shown anywhere close, but I will trust the people who reviewed it.) He tried to get that movie made for decades. And in the end... He had to finance it himself. He made that entire wine brand, then sold it after it became profitable and then used that movie to get the movie made. Which, yes, allowed him to go completely autheur. Outside of having to make some adjustments to other humans being involved as actors, for costumes and so on, he is the autheur of that movie.

But... here is the thing: That is in the end rare. Only few people ever will have the money to just... make their own movie. And as long as you do not have that kind of personal investment... I am sorry, there just is no true autheur. Not in today's world, where most movies are so very, very much expensive.

And the same goes for most other multimedia things. Even though, yes, technically speaking their are some autheurs in the indie game sphere, because... indeed, there are always a couple of - at times even really amazing - indie games, that have been produced by a team of 1 to 5 people.

But in terms of movie and TV? Yeah, no. That just... is not feasible.

[houghtonlib]

"Story of a man with the hair of a woman" from Boaistuau, Pierre. Histoires prodigieuses : extraictes de plusieurs fameux autheurs, grecs et latins, sacrez et prophanes. Paris, 1568.

25228.18.9.2

Houghton Library, Harvard University

[muspeccoll]

This illustration is from L'Homme by René Descartes, and we just happen to have it in our collection. More information at the link!

Vision and the mechanism for response to external stimuli | 1677

[tinnchan]

I think one of the reason why I also seek so many asian bls and gls is because of how refreshing they are. They are so free of cynicism you might get whiplash when you switch from other media.

Yes, you can have your tongue-in-cheek moments or instances of self awareness but in an era where everything has to have 3 levels of irony and cynicism, where everything has to be toned down to be taken seriously or where even love and devotion needs to be caveated, bls and gls exist!

You can have your big emotions and your displays. You can let your guard down. You don't have to care about cringe. You do not have to be afraid of sincerity! Plus its queer!

[haitilegends]

Par Mireille Sylvain-David,

Je dédie mon poème intitulé "MON RÊVE D’UN BEAU PAYS" à la mémoire de Mikaben, ce grand compositeur qui a chanté Haiti jusqu’à son dernier souffle. Comme moi et comme mon père, Marcel L. Sylvain, auteur de « Haiti » et comme tant d'autres artistes engagés, ce jeune artiste patriote rêvait de changement, de bonté et de beauté pour son Haiti, votre Haiti, en un mot notre Haiti. Que Dieu, notre Seigneur, le reçoive dans son royaume.

--------------------------

MON RÊVE D’UN BEAU PAYS

La nuit m’a trompée.

Dans mon rêve, le soleil m’éblouissait,

Je me trouvais dans

Une vallée de lumière, verte de fougères

Remplie de jolis jolis, de violettes,

De roses rouges, de bougainvilliers nuancés

De jasmins blancs, de camélias roses

Des fleurs simples

Colorantes et parfumées

Comme dans les printemps savoureux.

La nuit m’a trompée.

Dans mon rêve, j’étais fascinée,

Je voyais des montagnes

Couvertes de légumes et d’orangers

De figuiers, de bananiers,

De mangues, de mandarines

De fruits simples, juteux

Appétissant et odorants

Comme au temps des nouveautés.

La nuit m’a trompée.

Dans mon rêve, j’étais enchantée,

Je voyais des enfants

Sous la vigilance parentale

Jouant et dansant dans des

Jardins ensoleillés

Sous des arbres verts

Des arbres simples

Touffus et fleuris

Comme dans les étés de tropiques.

La Nuit m’a trompée.

Dans mon rêve, j’étais éblouie,

Je voyais des hommes et des femmes

Passer une rivière

Où coulait une eau limpide

Entre des cailloux

Des cailloux simples, abandonnés

Luisants et dorés comme des pierres précieuses

À côté des feuilles mordorées d’un bel automne.

La nuit m’a trompée.

Dans mon rêve, j’étais ébahie,

Je me voyais dans des ruelles

Devant de jolies maisons

Des logis simples

Entourés d’un sublime emblème

Comme pour dire à nos disparus

Qu’ils ne sont pas des fantômes

Mais les gardiens de nos villes

Dont les cendres réchauffent nos âmes

Comme des étincelles éblouissantes

D’un feu d’artifice d’un hiver brulant.

Ô ! Nuit trompeuse,

Mon rêve ne sera même pas un mirage.

À travers mon fantasme, toute éveillée,

J’en appelle à mon créateur

J’en appelle à mes frères

Pour rendre réelle cette vision

D’un pays sain, d’un peuple allègre

Comme le courant du ruisseau

Affluent ou profond, selon les saisons.

(Tous droits réservés

Une Vie en Poésie/A life with Poetry,

Recueil de Poèmes de Mireille Sylvain-David

[landofshame]

as radical leftist and lgbt+ theory goes, social media is like at a 4

while in the “””real””” world, it’s like at a 21.

it’s quite something

[lesser-known-composers]

Jacques-Martin Hotteterre (1674.-1763.), Airs et brunettes à deux et trois dessus pour les flutes traversières tirez des meilleurs autheurs, anciens et modernes (1721.) Air de M. de Bousset, Porquoy doux Rossignols

Croatian Baroque ensemble : Ana Benić, flute and artistic leadership Nika Zlatarić, viola da gamba Izidor Erazem Grafenauer, theorbo and guitar Pavao Mašić, harpsichord

[cinegraphia]

El todo, la nada, el cine: Tarkovsky //  Everything, nothing, film:Tarkovsky

Ingmar Bergman dijo alguna vez sobre Tarkovsky:

"Tarkovsky para mí es el director más importante, porque ha encontrado un lenguaje que corresponde a la esencia de la película: La vida como un sueño."

Sin embargo, las películas de Tarkovski son por un lado, secuencias de sueño y, por otro, la realidad más evidente que el realizardor ruso colocó siempre delante de nosotros. Tarkovsky crea secuencias de sueño siempre sujetadas un una realidad, basado en un factor fundametal -que lo hace un autheur irremediable-: el alto grado de subjetividad de su cine…

¿No son acaso los pensamientos/ensoñaciones de una persona subjetividad en estado puro y su posterior revelación cinematográfica, la forma más honesta de hacer películas?

La "realidad" de Tarkovski prefirió la vida de los débiles, porque en sus películas la errante existencia y la debilidad son vistas como un signo de vida, mientras que la dureza y la fuerza significan la muerte. Tarkovsky es un mago de cuyo hechizo no se puede escapar.

Andréi esculpió el tiempo a través del cine, sus películas son hoy, fracciones, circunstancias, oportunidades, lugares; la vida, el tiempo, la continuidad, la repetición, el sueño, el todo, la nada, el cine...Tarkovsky.

Everything, nothing, film:Tarkovsky 

 Ingmar Bergman once said about Tarkovsky: 

 "Tarkovsky for me is the most important director, because he has found a language that corresponds to the essence of film. Life like a dream." 

However, Tarkovsky's films are, on the one hand, dream sequences and, on the other, an obvious reality that the Russian filmmaker always places before us. 

Tarkovsky creates dream sequences that are always attached to a reality, based on a fundamental creation factor- which makes him hopelessly autheur-: a high degree of subjectivity...Are they not the thoughts or dreams of a person of pure subjectivity, whose filmic revelations is the most honest way to make movies? 

The "reality" of Tarkovsky films focused on the life of the weak, because in his films the wandering existence and weakness is seen as a sign of life, while hardness and strength mean death. Tarkovsky is a wizard whose spell we cannot escape. 

 Andréi sculpted time through cinema, his films are today fractions, circumstances, opportunities, places; life, time, continuity, repetition, dreams, everything, nothing, film...Tarkovsky.

Por / By Jaqueline Avila 

[ariel-seagull-wings]

@the-blue-fairie @thealmightyemprex @makingboneboy @themousefromfantasyland

When you watch on the same day Jessie Gender and Aranock's video essay calling out the staticness of Star Wars, George Lucas control in the name of being an autheur and campbellian Hero's Journey in Hollywood pop culture, and Classic Doctor Who story The Mind Robbers where a group of friends unite to not become static fiction by an all controlling author.

[netlex]

Trésor des deux langues espagnolle et françoise

augmenté sur les mémoires de son autheur. Outre un bon nombre de dictions & de phrases, avec une seconde partie toute nouvelle, beaucoup plus ample qu'auparavant. Le tout corrigé & réduit en meilleur ordre par Antoine Oudin. Le dictionnaire de Xerigonca ou jargon, qui estoit a part, est expliqué en françois, & mis en son rang dans le corps du livre

Auteur(s) : OUDIN César, OUDIN Antoine Éditeur : à Paris, chez Pierre MENARD, libraire juré, rue de la bouclerie, proche le pont s. Michel, au Bon pasteur Édition : nouvelle édition augmentée (la première version date de 1607) Année :   1660 Volumes : 1 vol (687 p.) Format : In-quarto

[alpaca-clouds]

Media Production: Executive Meddling

This blog is related to the topic I spoke about yesterday. True Autheurs are rare, because very few people have the ability to fully finance their artistic projects. So most of them have to work with the expectations of their investors and financiers. And this is exactly where the topic of today comes in: Executive Meddling.

So, whenever there is a multimedia project, you will usually have a producer and an executive producer. The executive producer and usually several producers. The executive producer(s) are on the top of the totempole, which theoretically means that technically speaking they are responsible for the project's finances, which also means that their head is on the line when a project fails (especially when it fails financially). But of course we know how in modern day capitalism this does no longer work like that. Just like CEOs will not be held responsible for whatever mess-ups, usually executive producers will also blame someone else further down the chain of commands.

Technically speaking the theory is, that the executive producer hires the other producers, who then will go and get funding, but this, too, often does not hold true. Again, remember that these days with a lot of multimedia projects some of the artists (be it musicians, actors, directors and so on) will also produce, to have at least some control over the project and so on.

Also: Yes, normal producers can meddle. But of course nobody has quite as much power to meddle with a project as the executive producer.

I first ever learned about Executive Meddling as a concept, when I was a child, through my hyperfixation: Digimon. Because Digimon was one of those shows, that obviously was in the optimal position for Executive Meddling. It was a show ordered by the main investor - Bandai. It was not a project that started out with a creative idea, but that began with the idea of: "We want to have a show that works as an advertisement for our toys!" While this is a common thing to happen in Japan with anime, this will almost always get at some point some problems with executive meddling.

Because of that a lot of Digimon seasons have things happen that can be explained with: "This happened because someone at Bandai thought it might sell more toys." Characters were added to sell more toys. Storylines were altered to sell more toys.

To this day I would love to know what has happened behind the scenes of Digimon Xros Wars, because that show was probably heavily altered. Given that I know for certain that there were "creative differences" (which half of the time means: "Producers wanted something very different from the creative staff"), but I never found up what this involved.

The other franchise where I learned a lot about the executive meddling was Pirates of the Caribbean. Because Jerry Bruckheimer - who is the main producer for those films - is fairly known to be a very exhausting producer. He often hangs around the set and often gives some input that is just what he assumes would work. Not based on any knowledge of the matter, or anything any investors asked. He just... likes to feel included, I guess.

But it is an issue in quite a few creative projects. Movies, TV shows, games... The more money is involved, the harsher the executive meddling can get, because the more money is involved the more power the investors also have. Makes sense, right?

Of course, there are some projects where either the main creative voices manage to get their way - or where they actually have a good producer, who believes in the creative process. But this often does not happen.

Mind you: On some level of course the worries of the investors are understandable. I talked about Megalopolis yesterday. I have not gotten a chance to watch the movie, but literally everyone I know that has gotten that chance told me, how "weird" and "out there" the movie was. So, yes, I absolutely get that people were not willing to just give Coppola those 100 million bucks to make his weird out there project. And especially when it comes to some of the modern blockbuster media, that costs between 200 and 500 million, I somewhat understand why people are concerned about it.

But in my opinion there is a better solution than heavy control over this stuff: Make cheaper media.

Especially given that most of the stuff that is so very expensive does not really matter. No, a movie does not need several big name actors and the most awesome fancy VFX. (How the fuck are practical effects cheaper than VFX either way?) No, a game does not need the most fancy graphics. No, a TV show does not need to have the same kind of fidelity as a movie. It does not have to be like that. It was fine forever without everything being "premium".

But that is the topic we will talk about a bit more tomorrow.

For today I will just say: Whenever a show suddenly drops in quality, whenever an expensive game suddenly is very different from other stuff released by the same people, and whenever a movie does not mash with whatever the director has brought out so far, I am just always gonna assume that it is because of executive meddling.

Of course creative people can put out a dud even without anyone meddling with thier process. But more often than not it happens because people have meddled with it. But more often than not issues arrise from some form of meddling.

Just let creatives do their stuff. I mean, heck, you hired those people for a reason, right? Let them do, what you hired them for.

[egopoiesis]

Grammarly I KNOW. I KNOW I talk like this that is why I am a COMIC artist and not an AUTHEUR of the WRITTEN WORD. I know. 

[nectaeriine]

[3:29am] His sobs wrack his body as the rain pounds onto him, soaking him from head to toe. He looks up, closing his eyes and feeling the rain on his skin, washing away his tears. The distant rumble of thunder reminding him what he was about to do. Memories flash here and there. Your laughter echoing around him, causing him an endless suffering. Your beautiful smile missing from his life, haunting him. He has coped with the pain for far too long. Mingi kneels down, rearranging the limp flowers by the tombstone, your name inscribed onto it. The date of your death today. He kisses the cold stone and the wind picks up, chilling him to the bone. He is heavy handed as he takes a step back. "I love you" Mingi says, tears still streaming, the rain failing to wash them away. "I love you so much. Always have and always will. Don't worry. I'll be with you soon." The noises surrounding him drown out as he pulls the trigger, the recoil pushing him back, the ringing of the bullet piercing the air.

♤•|•♤

HELLO :)

So I wrote this in my sad girl hours, and no it wasn't the rain that inspired me, it was the FUCKING SUN THAT IS BURNING THE UK HOW THE HELL IS IT SO HOT IN THIS COUNTRY, ITS THE ILLUMINATE I SWeaR, I think England is brOkeN. thanks for listening to me Ted talk, ciao. - le autheur