I like every aspect of this film, never having heard of Ti West or knowing that “The House of the Devil” is a low budget film in the indie sense. Yes the performances and set pieces were excellent but everything else worked, as well. It’s not just a film that looks like it was made in the 1980s simply through production values, it even sounds and feels like one. From when I had noticed the first camera zoom I could tell that the film would be shot in an “old school” 1980s manner and I smiled more with every other camera zoom to follow. The hair cuts, the editing… everything made this a virtuoso job of replicating the time period and its film style.

Story-wise I can not complain either because the film’s written introductions claim that “the following is unexplained”. Yet I understood every single aspect of the film and had no questions once it was over. Why? Because this writer/director/editor did a damn good job.

I am not criticizing your critique, I simply claim that your misconception of what ruined the film for you is what actuallt makes it good. Also, how you criticize it so much and yet still recommend it?

I appreciate your candid response. But with all due respect, you cannot refute an article which concerns “The House of the Devil” if you admittedly have not even seen the film! In my mind, there is nothing wrong with Written/Directed/Edited by conceptually. But the reality is that all filmmakers are not professionals in these three areas. Ti West did not have to take on all three jobs, but he wanted to because he desired the project to be his and his alone.

There are many hardworking editors out there who would not only be able to understand what West was going for but who would also be able to suggest innovative strategies at elevating the material. There are also a ton of writers out there who could take Ti West’s script and turn it into gold.

Until filmmakers like Ti West truly realize their talents and their limits, their films will never reach maximum potential.

And no, crediting yourself for writing, directing & editing a movie is not seen as being “a cock” in film schools, or anywhere else, and it’s almost de facto standard to put the major production roles in the opening titles. For what it’s worth, the ‘A film by…’ credit is usually seen as hubristic and cocky, because it’s meaningless, misleading and egomaniacal. The ‘Written, directed & edited by…’ credit is none of those things.

It is very common for directors to edit their own material, especially nowadays in the age of digital intermediates. If West wants to edit a movie, then West certainly has the right. It has *nothing* to do with presuming to be an auteur. Auteur status is not based on assuming many roles, but on demonstrating a distinctive style across several movies. You even mention Kubrick as a superlative example of an auteur, yet he never served as principal editor on any of his movies. I repeat: what the hell are you talking about!?

You presume that West neglected collaboration, and yet he collaborated with a cinematographer, sound recordists, sound designers, producers, production designers, costume designers, makeup & wardrobe personel, etc., etc., etc. I’m assuming that, according to you, the only important roles in a production are the writer, director & editor…?

Regardless, you have it ass backwards. If the movie opened with “A film by Ti West,” that would’ve been a dickish credit. But opening it with “Written, directed & edited by Ti West” is, quite literally, an industry standard. Don’t get me wrong: I haven’t even seen this movie and I have no allegiance to Ti West (don’t know anything about him). It’s just irksome to see a fellow filmmaker blasted out of the water by some jackass behind a keyboard who’s making grandstanding presumption that, under any level of scrutiny, reveal themselves as absolute bullshit. I say this to you and to all the other ersatz critics roaming the Internet like scuttling little bugs: *review* the movie. Write about what you saw, how it made you feel, what’s effective, what isn’t. Don’t write about your silly little presumptions about how the movie was made, or why it was made, or what the filmmakers are like on a personal level, and then try to pass that off as some sort of critical analysis. It’s ridiculous, useless, and it amounts to nothing but a steady stream of fetid hot air.

Cheers,
A filmmaker who *gasp!* often serves as director and cinematographer on the same project!