What makes George A Romero an auteur?

[Film Student]

Hi my name is richard and im a film student.
I have a project to discuss weather george a romero is an autuer, but as i looked on the internet sites all the sites were saying that he was an auteur. So ive decided to change my title to why is he an auteur.

I would like you to tell me why you think he may or may not be an autuer.

any information you give will be really helpfull for my project

[axlish]

In his earlier films, his rapid fire editing was his calling card. He also had a knack for taking bits and pieces of music, and producing entirely new music out of it, creating for an interesting feel. His scripts are always filled with social commentary, even today. He was certainly more of an auteur in his earlier career from Night of the Living Dead and ending with Day of the Dead. His movies since then have involved more fingers in the creative pie, and he cannot lay as much claim to the creative element as he did earlier in his career.

[EvilNed]

Well, if I'm not mistaken there is no real exact criteria for being an autheur. Thus defining a person as an auteur immidietly becomes tricky. Is Tim Burton an auteur? Or is he just a good filmmaker?

[MinionZombie]

I wrote an essay exactly about whether GAR is an auteur or not ... and no, I ain't givin' it ya :D ... I did conclude that he was/is an auteur. It was a fun essay to write though.

[Danny]

^really?:rockbrow: i did one last year for film studies about how i though he wasnt, romero aint predictabel enough to be an autuer, though its all just theory anyway, since im currently writing a presentation script about kevin smith being an autuer i had to point out that no one technically could be an autuer, especially in bigger budget films, do they make all the scenery adn costumes themselves?, do they act every part?, of course they cant so how can a film be defined by said person?, a film is made by many people, not just one so the autuer theory doesnt quite work in the grand scope of film making, though i can see how it seems more plausible with burton, what with everything being all "hyper-emo" white and black stripes and whatnot, but its different for every person, i think george pre dead movies was more an example of the autuer theory than he is today, but wether a film maker is considered one or not does not mean he is a bad film maker.
when you hear a film is being made by uew boll you allready know how it will be aweful and full of lame actions sequences, so if you know what to expect of one of his films, no matter the subject matter, adn can recognise his style does this mean he is an autuer?, albiet with negative connotations?

[MinionZombie]

There's a whole deep and twisting theory behind auteurism - both Anglosized and the original French incarnation. Not all of GAR's flicks make him an auteur, but it's his main body of work - the stuff he's recognised for, that does make him an auteur.

An auteur is someone who wields the main creative force - the director, after all, is who people ultimately answer to and direct all their questions to - the director then makes a call and provides over all guidance.

Especially in his earlier career, GAR wrote, he edited and he directed - as well as produced at times if I'm not mistaken.

He's controlling the content of the film - the content is pretty much sorted from the script, if a script is crap - it's gonna be a crap film. He then directed his own script in his own vision and then he edited (until around about Knightriders) to his own vision in his own style.

One of the key aspects about being an auteur is if you look at their work, does it feel like that filmmaker has expressed their vision.

You can look at most GAR movies (not really counting Monkey Shines/The Dark Half kinda flicks in his later years - Land is an exception to this though) and you know that they're a GAR flick. Likewise - look at a Kubrick flick, who else made movies like Kubrick did? Nobody, you see a Kubrick flick and you know it's his flick - same thing with GAR's films - points of similarity or continued expression, about a small range of topics held dear to the writer/director's heart, expanding across their body of work.

[Danny]

yeah thats the other problem, no two people will ever explain autuer theory the same way, guess thats part of the problem about defining someone as being one or not huh?:D

[MinionZombie]

yeah thats the other problem, no two people will ever explain autuer theory the same way, guess thats part of the problem about defining someone as being one or not huh?:D
Hmmm ... all you need to do is study in depth les politiques des auteurs and Auteur Theory and you've got your answer.

[Danny]

oh i agree, trouble is there will allways in life be something that contrdicts an idea and sometimes turns it on its head, so needless to say the whole autuer thing is a tricky b'yatch.
i myself spent ages mulling ove rwho to pick for mine before i chose kevin smith then i chose clerks as my focus film (duh.) and mallrats and chasing amy as examples of one in the same vein that bombed and anothr that was serious and showed smith could do more adult movies and yet both retained the essence of a kevin smith film.

which is ,in essence, dick and fart jokes.:lol: