3 ms·
What about Hitchcock? Lang? Sturges? Von Sternberg? Welles? Directors enjoyed top-billing prior to the articles and films by the Cahiers du Cinéma critics.
by l33tbro 4y ago
What about Hitchcock? Lang? Sturges? Von Sternberg? Welles?
Directors enjoyed top-billing prior to the articles and films by the Cahiers du Cinéma critics. While they made a huge contribution to the form of cinema, how many people really saw Breathless or read Hitchcock/Truffaut?
New Hollywood was mostly egged on by whip-smart critics with a wide circulation like Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, who further elevated the director as artist in the public mind. The studios followed suit and thought they could make a buck with these prestige films, until there were too many self-indulgent flops.
- aasasd 4y ago> ‘Breathless’ opened in Paris ... not in an art house but at a chain of four commercial theaters, selling 259,046 tickets in four weeks. The eventual profit was substantial, rumored to be fifty times the investment. The film's success with the public corresponded to its generally ardent and astonished critical reception ... ‘Breathless’, as a result of its extraordinary and calculated congruence with the moment, and of the fusion of its attributes with the story of its production and with the public persona of its director, was singularly identified with the media responses it generated. (Richard Brody)
- l33tbro 4y agoSure, but what is your point? I never said the early French New Wave films didn't do well in their native homeland. My point stands that there were 'name' directors that excited the public long before the auteur theory.