Director as Author? - The Auteur Theory

Whether or not it is used correctly, the auteur theory is perhaps the most influential policy in examining films. In a single line to explain the theory, it would be that the director, more so than anyone else, leaves his or her imprint on the movie he or she has directed. While passionate debates raged when the auteur theory was first brought to attention, it (or at least its consequences) has become the major discourse in discussing movies today. From critical examinations of a director's body of work such as Donald Richie's The Films of Akira Kurosawa, to the use of credits like "A Steven Spielberg Film," or even looking at our own Son of the Suns' "What is your favorite [enter director here] film" in the Census forum, the auteur theory has, at the least, framed the discussions on film.

background/origins
In thinking about its place in society, films were long considered as entertainment and/or mass media. In particular, film theory came from a medium standpoint. The attempts were made to judge film as a medium, and how it related to society. Sociological viewpoints were/are useful in placing a movie in its larger, societal context. Similarly, the filmmakers were considered artisans instead of artists. But to examine movies in this fashion is, auteurist Andrew Sarris argues, only looking at the forrest without looking at the trees. Each individual movie's artistic acheivement is not valued.

Attacking the French films in the "tradition of quality" in the 1950s, the young French critics at Cahiers du Cinema, founded by Andre Bazin, were the originators of what would become the auteur theory. The critics at Cahiers thought that the many well produced French films in this tradition were subpar artistic representations of the film medium. That they were technically well made, but devoid of any personal style or feeling. In 1954, Francois Truffaut first coined the term "auteur" in Cahiers with his piece Politique des auteurs. "Auteur" in strict translation means "author" in English. Many of the Cahier critics would later become important filmmakers in the New Wave.

The beginnings of auteurism in America was largely shaped by Andrew Sarris. Sarris first employed the term "auteur theory" in 1962 for Film Culture. Sarris' piece became the center of debate across American film scholarship. His most reknowned battles were with Pauline Kael; they attacked each other fiercely. His piece for Film Culture was later expanded in 1968 into The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968. Arguable the most influential American film scholar work and still the Bible of Auteurism, Sarris' book rated around 200 directors from the beginning of the sound era to his present time and put them in distinct categories. The highest category, the pantheon directors, contained 14 directors.

the theory/argument
Although it carries the big word "theory," auteurism is less of a theory than a policy. The basis of its argument is that if you had to choose one category to detetmine a film's quality, the director is your safest bet. Better than the actors, writers, budget, genre, studio, etc. The director, they claim, is the closest thing to an author a film will have. The French auteurists had pointed to American genre films of the past when discussing auteurism. In fact, they re-evaluated genre films such as the Western to new critical heights that the films did not receive before. They pointed out that filmmakers like Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock worked within the studio system, yet still put florishes of his personal touch into the films. This demonstrates one of the fundemental beliefs of the auteurists, that beyond the main plot and genre, an auteur injects his personal subtext and visual style into his films.

Furthermore, that certain themes, subtexts, and visual styles remain as threads through the director's career. Also, the auteurists stress that in many cases, it is not what is said that is important, but [

 

If I read that correctly (it's very late, I may have misread), I basically agree with the auteur theory, in that it only applies to those who're honestly extremely good and extremely stylized. If you're a generic director making generic films for Hollywood, or you're just a bad director, no matter how quirky your directorial style, you're not an auteur.

But Stanley Kubrick? Francis Ford Coppola? They are/were auteurs, just as Kurosawa, Scorsese, Hitchcock, Truffaut, Lang, etc., were.

They had an amazing body of work, an amazing consistency of style and invention, and they honestly knew what they were doing in a way few others ever would.

I would also list, as auteurs, the following fine fellows; Oliver Stone, Milos Forman, David Fincher, Tim Burton, Alex Proyas, David Lynch, Baz Luhrmann (altho I despise his style), and of course, Mr. Spielberg.

I believe Mr. Lucas could've been one, had he continued on the path he started down. However, the success of Star Wars, while wonderful for his life and for all of us, stunted and basically killed his actual directing career, in terms of creativity. In time, maybe he'll be seen differently, but I can't honestly say.

Oh, and another name to the list.......John Carpenter. This is likely going to be debated, but look at the man's body of work. He's created a unique and impressive style that's carried on even through his recent spate of bad films, and in his early work, he showed incredible talent and creativity. Watch Halloween, They Live, The Thing, Starman, and Big Trouble in Little China, one after another, and you'll know why his recent bad movies have disappointed so many people. But hey, everybody has bad streaks. Even Robert Altman (another auteur) has made some flops.

 

Yeah, Amadues is right. Kubrick was still not a household name when 2001 came out.


Another Example if I get the title right is Tom Clancy. He co-produced The Sum of All Fears and Red October, even though both didn't follow the book very well. It goes to show that a book turned into a movie produced by the author won't make it a "to the book" film. Although Another point id J.K. Rowling. She doesn't help produce the HP films, yet the movie seemed pretty darn close to the book.

So if I read the title right, the above explanation should help some people see the point.

 

I would agree with the auteur theory. The key words in your one sentence synopsis, bright sith are these:

above all others

The vision as it reaches the screen is the product of many visions, but the director's vision is the one that leaves the most impact.

Actors take roles and make them their own, but the director still directs them. The cinematographer is a huge part of it, but he is charged with bringing the vision of the director to the screen. The soundtrack plays a huge part in the emotion of the film, but again, this person is chosen and directed by the director.

I'd also agree with Amadeus' list of auteurs, but I'd have to add a couple:

John Woo and John Ford are, in my opinion, perfect examples of the auteur. Both have consistent visual styles and flourishes and themes that run through their films.

I'll also admit that George Stevens was an auteur, even though I don't really care for his style, especially later in his career.

 

IMO, film is a collabrative medium but is not the sum of a commitee, or at least, the best films are. That is, you know your role in the filmmaking process and work together to realize your chief end and thus all involved are part of the creative process.

However, this does not mean that everyone comes to a consensus on how the film should be made which would comprimise the singular work of the visonary (whether he be Director- Psycho, Producer- Bonnie and Clyde, Screenwriter- The Maltese Falcon, Actor- The Seven Year Itch, or otherwise.)

Having said this, I would concur with Frank Capra that the best films are made when the director is the primary visonary.

~PAd

 

I sort of wanted to avoid naming names in this thread specifically because the discussion could be too heavily dominated by that. But it seems that from these few posts, most people agree with the theory on some level; I do too. It's not surprising since we are the generations after the rise of auteurism, and we have often emphasized over the director more so than anyone else.

Even with this thought, I think there are crucial questions to ask. If we believe in auteurism, then the most basic question is if auteurism has actually made the director more powerful. It is a question of how theory has influenced actual practice. Has our strong belief of the director being the main vision of a picture caused directors to have more say in the filmmaking process? Or, are directors today still only adding themselves to pictures in less than explicit ways as the directors under the old studio system were?

 

bright sith-

Actually, auteurism was probably more obvious in the very earliest films, where certain directors took it upon themselves to have ridiculous amounts of control over there films.

Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, James Whale, Eric von Stroheim, etc., were all auteurs of the earliest days, and all would've been perfectly comfortable had they later visited a Kubrick set and seen him demanding 70 takes of the smallest, most inconsequential shots.

In other words, I don't think the director is any more important or "in the forefront" nowadays. In fact, since really memorable and interesting films are much rarer today, due to Hollywood's blockbuster mentality, I'd say that there is less focus than ever before on who's actually directing a film.

Two notable exceptions that give one hope are M. Night Shyamalan and Chris Nolan, but we'll wait and see on them. They seem on the right track.

 

Interesting points, but I still feel that auteurism is alive and well today. Whale is a good example of another early auteur. Again, the level of control is an issue, but control alone does not make one an auteur.

If a director asks for seventy takes of a single scene simply because he is a control freak, then he is not an auteur. Sometimes, as with Barry Levinson's Rain Man, the level of auteurism comes from knowing when one take is perfect and anything else will simply muddy the waters.

I feel that there are as many auteurs today as there have ever been, but I feel that this is necessary. I think natural evolution led the director to take control because he was the most natural person. I don't feel that the theory overly influenced reality.

 

Amadeus, I would certainly agree with your assessment on the early days of cinema, but one of the standout things that the auteurists argued was that a director did not need to be totally in control to be an auteur. The French surprised truck loads of people when they openly held certain genre films with high regards.

To be clearer, I do think the directors who have control over most aspects have a better chance at imprinting their vision onto their movies, but that isn't in much doubt. Could we draw an analogy from yesteryear's genre films to today's big budgeted blockbusters? From a studio standpoint, both are made with the purpose of making money, pure and simple. The main storyline and characters are usually familiar to the audience, and have a predictability about them that draws a significant audience.

If you ask the original auteurists from the 60s today, I'm not sure if they would find this analogy adequate. And I don't know if we should trust them if their answer is no. If you read Sarris today, he sometimes projects a nostalgia for the past. It's understandable, but I think it would also cloud his judgment. My questions in my previous post really contained two specific parts. 1) Do directors have more power today? Like Amadeus, I'm not sure there is any evidence; and 2) are directors across time in no different position? What I would argue is that the directors of today's big budgeted movies seem to be in no different a position than old genre films from the studio system, and this is where we somewhat disagree, Amadeus. I agree more with Rogue's implicit conntations on this issue.

 

I have read Sarris' book, and I don't agree with some of its basic tenets. One of them was that tension between the subject matter and director was important. The auteur theory did not really mean that the director was author of the film, if you read the original stuff.

But that, after the passage of some years, is what it has come to mean. To some extent, that is the case, but I have to say the director is first among equals, but you can find lots of unsuccessful movies directed by talented directors.