The way to conduct the interview can also highlight elements or aspects of the film that are in fact secondary to the filmmaker or induce unilateral interpretations which the filmmaker may agree with but which mask other possible ones. Finally, it is not certain that the analysis that a filmmaker will give of his own film is necessarily exact or reliable, insofar as he himself interprets the result of a long creative process, the primary reasons for which are partly buried and disappeared. For movies, free-putlockers.com is the best option for you.
All this justifies making a distinction between the filmmaker, a real person, and the author as a film figure that the viewer reconstructs through his vision of the film, even if there is obviously an overlap between these two instances: for each film, only an in-depth historical research would, however, make it possible to determine with relative certainty how and within what limits to operate such a recovery.
The author, film figure
It is indeed necessary to distinguish between the real person in charge of the film (who can be multiple or who, as individual, can be subjected to contradictory requirements) and the author of the film such as the spectator can reconstitute it through his vision of the film, if the filmmaker does not indeed appear as such in his film (with rare exceptions), we can nevertheless detect his presence through multiple clues scattered throughout the film.
- Whether it is the position of the camera, the framing, the editing, the accompanying music, all these elements and many others, as soon as they are taken into account by the spectator, cannot be explained or simply understood without referring to the author of the film as responsible for their choice: for example, even if the filmmaker did not personally compose the music for his film, it was he who chose it, who determined the moments when it should appear and who integrated it more or less successful in the whole film.
The Right Elements
Many film elements can thus be interpreted on a double level, that of the story staged or that of the author, responsible “in the last instance” for this staging. For example, the costume of the characters could be seen as a reflection of their character, their historical or social affiliation or their present psychological state (messy clothes expressing a “disorder” of the mind), but it ultimately results of a choice of the filmmaker, undoubtedly aiming to translate the character, the historical or social affiliation or the psychological state of the characters, but also going beyond this only dimension: thus, the choice of very colored clothes in many films of Almodóvar is not only explained by the supposed character of the characters and will be easily put in relation with the choice of other film elements such as the sets and the lights in a setting that we will describe as “baroque”, “kitsch” or even “flamboyant” or “outrageous”.
The Bad Education of Pedro Almódovar
Similarly, to describe the intrigue of many films by Almodóvar or Douglas Sirk as melodramatic leads to go beyond the point of view of the characters (who may live in misfortune but do not consider it as “melodramatic”) to situate themselves in the level of the supposed author of such a plot.