When you binge on a specific director...

Tools    





No, calling oneself an auteur to immediately justify the poor quality of their art.

It's a dodge to claim auteurism as simply being some kind of exemption from critical accountability. Auteurism is a thing with a definition. It suggests we look at a filmmakers body of work to find meaning, and not just isolate a handful of scenes and pretend analysis stops there. It asks us to understand who the person who made the film was. Where they were coming from. The society they lived in. It tempts us to contemplate the nature of authorship--what is intentional vs what is unintentional--and how that plays into how we talk about a film.



Because of all of this, auteurism allows one to view film with an additional vantage point in mind when experiencing it. Or discussing it. To not think of it as just some artifact that can only be judged by what can tangibly be seen on screen. To instead open our minds up to wonder about the nature of creation. To see emerging themes and obsessions. To come to the revelations that what at first appears as a shortcoming or mistake, was a deliberate techniques that now makes us call into question how art should function, or what it should look like.



You know, interesting things to talk about.



Or we can talk about how dimly lit a scene was, or how bad a characters on stage performance was as a surrogate for that kind of talk. Your call.



Ok, so a b-movie about long scenes involving naked vampires and sexy voices is auteurism as opposed to a cheap sellout.


Auteurism is nothing more than the admittance that the director has more right to call himself the author than the writer or creator. This can be true, but it's not immediate justification that the film is immediately good based on the principle.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
And it doesn't justify bad acting or bad direction
All of these are very conventional parts of a film that one may use to judge. This is how your average Joe rates movies when they try to be critical. I'd rather take the movie as a whole. As a hypnotizing journey into the Mediterranean lewd vamps, a dreamlike fuzz oozing with slimed-up orgone. As Soledad Miranda dancing to the funkadelic music as Franco succumbs into the art of cheap sexploitation and balances on the thin line between art and schlock, constantly reinventing the place the line should be at. The film is mesmerizing in its drawn-out psychedelic shots. You either get it (and get a thumbs up from me) or you don't (and end up in pointless discussions on MoFo). Oh well.

You talk about taste but you easily deny similar "schlock" of higher quality
Citation needed.

Bram Stoker's Dracula has sexy vampire scenes and it still has more effort put into it. Hell, Twilight has more effort.
Not to deny that James Benning puts effort into his movies, but it's probably less effort than a modern blockbuster. He's doing it alone relative to hundreds of people in a blockbuster but get my point. Effort does not constitute quality. You can put a lot of work into a film and still end up with an indigestible piece of trash.

Wait? People are faking bad acting and terrible lighting to be considered auteurs?
This is obviously a biting retort BUT nobody's faking anything. When you call something bad, you operate on the usual, conscious meaning of what is good and what is bad. This is close-minded. You can put a lot of low-quality elements and come up with something of high quality. The final work is better than the sum of its parts. The "so bad it's good" (not suggesting Vampyros Lesbos belongs to this category) is a good example of what I mean. Every single element of these films is bad speaking in conventional terms, but the final outcome proves to be fascinating, mesmerizing, rather powerful.

No, calling oneself an auteur to immediately justify the poor quality of their art.
Auteurism is nothing more than the admittance that the director has more right to call himself the author than the writer or creator.
I find it incredibly funny this seems like you're accusing Franco of calling himself an auteur while it's only me calling him that.

I think you guys use too much brain and too little heart when watching films.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



Ok, so a b-movie about long scenes involving naked vampires and sexy voices is auteurism as opposed to a cheap sellout.

Your argument here seems predicated on the assumption that using the words 'b-movie', 'naked vampires' and 'sexy voices' somehow negates a film having worth. I require more heavy lifting if I am going to question why I think it's a great movie.



You also seem to have dug your heels in a bit in refusing to acknowledge that maybe there are different ways to look at a film like this. I mentioned how the theory of auteurism allows us to look into a film in deeper, sometimes more meaningful ways, and you have supplied me with some residue you skimmed off the surface of Vampyros Lesbos, as your rebuttal. It's almost like your proving my point that you aren't looking for anything else beyond its trashy looking appearance. It's unfortunate, because if someone wants to come in here and actually talk about what is interesting about VL, what they see going on within and beneath the images, I get the sneaking suspicion you will only once again point back at the **** and vampires and lesbians as if this somehow should end the discussion.



All of these are very conventional parts of a film that one may use to judge. This is how your average Joe rates movies when they try to be critical. I'd rather take the movie as a whole. As a hypnotizing journey into the Mediterranean lewd vamps, a dreamlike fuzz oozing with slimed-up orgone. As Soledad Miranda dancing to the funkadelic music as Franco succumbs into the art of cheap sexploitation and balances on the thin line between art and schlock, constantly reinventing the place the line should be at. The film is mesmerizing in its drawn-out psychedelic shots. You either get it (and get a thumbs up from me) or you don't (and end up in pointless discussions on MoFo). Oh well.

Citation needed.

Not to deny that James Benning puts effort into his movies, but it's probably less effort than a modern blockbuster. He's doing it alone relative to hundreds of people in a blockbuster but get my point. Effort does not constitute quality. You can put a lot of work into a film and still end up with an indigestible piece of trash.

This is obviously a biting retort BUT nobody's faking anything. When you call something bad, you operate on the usual, conscious meaning of what is good and what is bad. This is close-minded. You can put a lot of low-quality elements and come up with something of high quality. The final work is better than the sum of its parts. The "so bad it's good" (not suggesting Vampyros Lesbos belongs to this category) is a good example of what I mean. Every single element of these films is bad speaking in conventional terms, but the final outcome proves to be fascinating, mesmerizing, rather powerful.


I find it incredibly funny this seems like you're accusing Franco of calling himself an auteur while it's only me calling him that.

I think you guys use too much brain and too little heart when watching films.

Ok, first you say he is, and now your argument is that he's not really one? I'm not even gonna bother reading the rest. You clearly only say things for the sake of the argument. This misleading is your doing. He is or his isn't.


It doesn't change the fact that so far practically everything Vampyros Lesbos is doing, The Handmaiden did better. The effort Park put in mostly payed off. True, effort isn't always good, but I never said that. Not putting in effort isn't an all-justifying excuse, however.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
It's critics/audience that call somebody an auteur. Sure, a filmmaker may call himself an auteur, too, but it's rather the viewers' job to decide who's an auteur. Incidentally, more and more directors are called auteurs because more and more people who study film need topics for their dissertation. But also because more and more people deep-dive into their filmographies and discover new things about the work of these filmmakers.

The Handmaiden and Vampyros Lesbos have nothing to do with each other apart from "hehe, look, lesbians HEHEEH". It's fine if you prefer the former (I happen to prefer the latter), but they're two different movies. It's not just that they're different, but they should be experienced differently. Vampyros Lesbos should be experienced like a Brakhage film. The Handmaiden should be experienced like any film you watch at the blockbuster cinema.

Wait, are you trying to tell me you're watching Vampyros Lesbos as you're typing your posts on MoFo?



No, I pause. Since I'm in the middle of a conversation I pause. And no, they're more alike than you think. What are both movies offering? An erotic take on a seemingly forbidden love. Maybe the TAKES on this are different, but you seem to have missed the point. Everything Vampyros Lesbos offers was done better by better movies. Dracula, Handmaiden, Blue Velvet, all of these had effort and sacrifices that payed off. But there's a difference between minimal effort and neglect. There is no "you don't get this" this time. Vampyros Lesbos is a hammy erotic B-movie made only to make money off of people who want to get horny and hear sexy voices, and that's all I'm treating it as. I'll give it points for style and an attempt at plotting, but unless the last half-hour ups the ante, that's all I'll see.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
If you constantly pause a film you're not going to experience it at its full potential. I can't even believe I'm bothering to respond to you after you said that. Do you also watch it at 2x speed like some geniuses at Letterboxd?



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
There's no attempt at plotting. This film is not about the plot. All this film is about is lost on you because you watch it in segments and take breaks for MoFo. I'm finished with this discussion.



No, but I do remember everything about the movie until I need to rate it, because it's been proven that my mind is able to process movies that way, no matter how little faith some stranger on the internet who doesn't know my real name shows in me. And I'll do it again if I need to. So before you belittle my reviewing skills, keep in mind that I am autistic and I will not be judged for being able to process things in ways you probably can't.



There's no attempt at plotting. This film is not about the plot. All this film is about is lost on you because you watch it in segments and take breaks for MoFo. I'm finished with this discussion.

There's more plot here than most of the other Franco movies I've seen. I think it's only right that no one who barely knows me will tell me something is lost on me. If you're so holy, then you'd recognize that humility is NOT satanic and apologize for belittling me and respect my movie going choices. I don't have to agree with you or do things your way to be respectable. Your insult only confirms that I'll do this more to prove you wrong.

Therw's more plot here then many other bad movies. It actually has progression. The asylum subplot made things interesting. I'm watching it right now.

The reason I can't watch it normally is because you ask me questions and I answer them quickly out of politeness. And now YOU constantly belittle me and expect that I'll just let you. You're at fault. I was treating you with respect before, but not now anymore.

I will continuously pause it if I need to, and I'll review it if I want. As long as I, the only one who knows me, say it works for me because I have experience, that should be GOOD ENOUGH for you.



I don't know how "Jess Franco" makes a short list of bingeable directors in the first place. Even in the cult of Euro-erotic horror, I'm not sure how his name got above Bava, (early) Fulci, Rollins, Kumel, Aranda, Ercoli, etc.


The question I'm waiting for is which films qualify as Franco's "best" or (god forbid) "worst"? But it seems like a pretty rando choice either way.



I don't know how "Jess Franco" makes a short list of bingeable directors in the first place. Even in the cult of Euro-erotic horror, I'm not sure how his name got above Bava, (early) Fulci, Rollins, Kumel, Aranda, Ercoli, etc.

The question I'm waiting for is which films qualify as Franco's "best" or (god forbid) "worst"? But it seems like a pretty rando choice either way.

It might be. I only discovered him through his only MST3K entry, The Castle of Fu Manchu. I know Letterboxd considers that his worst movie, with the second being Oasis of the Zombies. As far as his best goes, the three options seem to be Vampyros Lesbos, Diabolical Dr. Z, and The Awful Dr. Orloff. I haven't seen the last of those. I also checked out The Girl from Rio, which wasn't utterly horrific like Fu Manchu, just pretty damn boring. I'll be done checking him out onpy qhen I've gone through his absolute best, worst and most popular, but no way I'm getting through all of them or even half. But sides, I can't seem to find some of them online and I don't wanna bother other people for the links.



If you constantly pause a film you're not going to experience it at its full potential. I can't even believe I'm bothering to respond to you after you said that.
I see this argument come up a lot, but I honestly don't understand it. Do you have to watch a TV show in one sitting, read a book in one sitting, play a videogame in one sitting, etc to experience them to their full potential? It's normal for those forms of media to be broken up into more than one viewing, playthrough, etc, so I don't see why movies are exempt from this. If the movie is still fresh in your head when you go back to it, isn't this all that matters?

If you're watching a movie and feel like you'd enjoy it more if you watch it in 2 or 3 or however many parts, I'd argue that refusing to break it up and watching it all in one go may actually cause you to get less out of it since, given that you'd rather take a break, you maybe wouldn't be feeling the movie as much and would have to push yourself to finish it. I generally watch movies in one viewing (save for films like Shoah or Satantango, which are several hours long), but I've definitely run into a few instances where I felt that taking a break helped me to enjoy the film more since, when I went back to it, I was feeling more in the mood to watch it.



I see this argument come up a lot, but I honestly don't understand it. Do you have to watch a TV show in one sitting, read a book in one sitting, play a videogame in one sitting, etc to experience them to their full potential? It's normal for those forms of media to be broken up into more than one viewing, playthrough, etc, so I don't see why movies are exempt from this. If the movie is still fresh in your head when you go back to it, isn't this all that matters?

If you're watching a movie and feel like you'd enjoy it more if you watch it in 2 or 3 or however many parts, I'd argue that refusing to break it up and watching it all in one go may actually cause you to get less out of it since, given that you'd rather take a break, you maybe wouldn't be feeling the movie as much and would have to push yourself to finish it. I generally watch movies in one viewing (save for films like Shoah or Satantango, which are several hours long), but I've definitely run into a few instances where I felt that taking a break helped me to enjoy the film more since, when I went back to it, I was feeling more in the mood to watch it.
If you're watching a 90 minute movie while constantly stopping to answer a message board, there's probably some concentration issues involved. 90 minutes is not a lot of time to ask for an undistracted viewing.



I don't know how "Jess Franco" makes a short list of bingeable directors in the first place. Even in the cult of Euro-erotic horror, I'm not sure how his name got above Bava, (early) Fulci, Rollins, Kumel, Aranda, Ercoli, etc.


The question I'm waiting for is which films qualify as Franco's "best" or (god forbid) "worst"? But it seems like a pretty rando choice either way.
With the caveat that I am nowhere near a Franco expert, I enjoyed these enough to contemplate returning to them at some point:


Vampyros Lesbos
She Killed in Ecstasy
The Devil Came from Akasava
Succubus
The Diabolical Dr. Z
Female Vampire
What a Honeymoon (*points to avatar*)



I know you've seen Count Dracula, which you seem to be fonder of than me. And I understand Bloody Moon is considered one of his sturdier works, but I didn't gel to it at all when I watched it a few years ago. Perhaps it may work better for you. At the very least there's a POV shot through a Mickey Mouse mask.


What makes Franco stand out in relation to those other directors, for better or worse, is probably the sheer volume of output. I watched an interview where one of his regulars (Paul Muller, if I remember correctly) says that he would often start thinking up his next project before he finished the one he was on, and as a result would lose interest in his current film. With that in mind, I've found the better ones to be where the leading lady is his wife/girlfriend (so Soledad Miranda or Lina Romay as the protagonist), as he seems to pay enough attention to give the movie some kind of shape or grounding. Whether or not he was a total incompetent probably needs further exploration to verify (and I confess I lack the stamina to do so comprehensively), but his '60s films that I've seen do feel sturdier, and with What a Honeymoon he shows a certain self awareness of the halfassed quality resulting from his production methods. (I found the movie quite enjoyable in its laidback way, but it helps if one is not immune to the charms of Lina Romay, especially in a cute hat. *points to avatar*)


I understand Stephen Thrower attempted such a feat with his mammoth pair of books on Franco's career. I have not read them, but judging by Nightmare USA (which I'm going through right now), I suspect they're worthwhile reading. The Important Cinema Club podcast used those books as a guide for their own neophytic Franco exploration, and do make some interesting points along the way. (I like this podcast quite a bit and listen to them regularly, although they're much better when talking about cult cinema, which they're clearly passionate about, than when they tackle more mainstream figures. Their Ray Dennis Steckler episode is one of their best. Their Robin Williams episode is one of their worst.)



https://soundcloud.com/the-important...-franco-part-1
https://soundcloud.com/the-important...-franco-part-2



I would never say one must watch a film all on one go, but I do think it is the ideal. And comparisons to books or television, and how we break up out experience with them, is flawed. Books and television, due to their length, are a challenge to finish in one sitting. A movie rarely poses such a problem. They are short. Attention spans should be able to survive them. Also, books and television are naturally segmented with chapters and episodes. they are built with breaks in mind. To make the comparison better, it would be a case of someone walking away from a book mid sentence. Clearly the flow of that paragraph is now compromised.


I think the best comparison should be between movies and songs. Stopping a song every time it moved towards ita chorus would be detrimental to its impact. Movies arent that different in how they build emotionally, each scene adding to what came before. To constantly stop a film while watching, breaks it's spell. And, obviously, that can make it less effective.



If you're watching a 90 minute movie while constantly stopping to answer a message board, there's probably some concentration issues involved. 90 minutes is not a lot of time to ask for an undistracted viewing.
Admittedly, I haven't really been keeping up with the discussion, so I don't know if the issue being responded to is stopping a movie, once, twice, or several times. Regardless, I agree that stopping a 90 minute movie multiple times is excessive. However, I'm more or less referring to taking one or two breaks while watching a movie. For example, watching half of a 90 minute movie, taking a break for several hours or however long, and going back to it to finish it. If the movie is still fresh in your mind, I don't see a problem with that.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



I would never say one must watch a film all on one go, but I do think it is the ideal. And comparisons to books or television, and how we break up out experience with them, is flawed. Books and television, due to their length, are a challenge to finish in one sitting. A movie rarely poses such a problem. They are short. Attention spans should be able to survive them. Also, books and television are naturally segmented with chapters and episodes. they are built with breaks in mind. To make the comparison better, it would be a case of someone walking away from a book mid sentence. Clearly the flow of that paragraph is now compromised.


I think the best comparison should be between movies and songs. Stopping a song every time it moved towards ita chorus would be detrimental to its impact. Movies arent that different in how they build emotionally, each scene adding to what came before. To constantly stop a film while watching, breaks it's spell. And, obviously, that can make it less effective.
I guess I can get behind that. However, I still stand by my second paragraph that there can be some cases where breaking up a film can help you to appreciate it more depending on how much you're feeling the film.



In the future, all movies will be only 12 minutes long. It's true! Research has shown that those with a phone addition can only go 12 minutes without checking their phones, hence the need for really short films.