audrey

I’ve noticed a number of posts recently that toss out “auteur theory” in response to threads on topics as diverse as aspect ratio, filmmaker’s vision, and attribution statements. From the context of these posts, it often seems that auteur is said in a disparaging tone---one that suggests supporting this view is tantamount to defending phrenology.

As I understand it (and I readily admit that I have only a superficial understanding of this topic), the key objections to Auteurism are these:

* The theory does not encompass all directors/movies
* It’s a marketing ploy to generate brand awareness
* The process and nature of commercial cinema overwhelm a singular artistic vision

Limited Value
Of course the theory lacks universal applicability—so does Relativity. Even Kael, herself, admits Auteurism seems to apply to some directors and not others. Does this limited applicability diminish its value? Not IMO; it simply means one must be selective in its use.

Marketing Ploy
I don’t disagree with this notion; yet I fail to see how this precept bears on Auteur theory---the two concepts are wholly independent of each other. Building brand awareness for a director does not also imply that directors are not, or can not be, the authors of their work.

The Collaborative Process and Artistic Control
While I do not believe auteur theory approaches the Universal Theory of Everything, neither do I discount the premise in its entirety. Clearly, filmmaking is collaborative, co-operative effort. Yet, some directors impart (or would seem to impart) an indelible fingerprint on their work that uniquely identifies their movies. These trademarks are frequently evident regardless of who wrote the screenplay, who served as director of photography, or even where the director did not retain final cut. Without diminishing the contributions of the screenwriter, the DP, the AD, the producer, the actors, and other crew members this signature appears to stem from a single source. If this source is not the director, from where does it originate?

I tend to agree with David Lavery who argued: For all its limitations, the auteur approach to categorizing and/or understanding movies thus remains a valuable heuristic, an effective and illuminating way of finding one’s way through the movie maze, of discovering films and filmmakers worthy of consideration, and offering a method for investigating a body of work.

Frankly, this isn’t a topic that I’m passionate about; I’m not wholly invested in auteur theory; I simply find it interesting. In that vain, I would enjoy hearing from others their opinions auteur theory and what framework (if any) opponents would suggest in its place.

wendersfan

I'm speaking for myself and generalizing to others, but I would have to say that those of us that believe in auteur theory are people who like/watch/study/are fans of the films made by directors that "fit" the theory well. For example, the directors I like most include people like Wenders, Godard, Renoir, Wong, and Bergman. For the most part, each of them exhibit consistent themes throughout their work, and (possibly even more important) found themselves in a position to be able to impart a unique "vision" onto their films. I doubt any of the men feel/felt they alone were responsible for that vision, but the fact remains each of them were able to place a unique stamp on their work.

There are many other theoretical frameworks one could use - feminist, Marxist, genre, etc.

Variable697

I tend to look at movies as either: Genre films or Auteur films. Both of these types of films can be good and bad. When a standard genre film is entertaining, then we say that the director was a competent craftsman. If the genre film sucks, then the director is a hack. An auteur is someone whose sensibility thoroughly guides the tone, look, acting, and themes of a movie. Often times an auteur film can slide into self-indulgence and meglomania, other times we get true masterpieces that will touch us deeply after mulitiple viewings and many years. There is some marketing involved because people who follow certain directors will feel compelled to see all of their movies, when it really isn't necessary. You don't have to watch every Truffaut film to understand the essence of his body of work. It's probably better to save time and avoid a good director's "bad" movies.

lesterlong

Kubrick = Auteur
Spielberg = Regular Director

Inverse

The problem with auteur theory is that it presupposes that it's asking a meaningful question - who is *the* author of a film?

Yet is finding a single author a useful exercise? Sure, many directors leave distinctive marks on their movies, but so do many writers, producers, cinematographers, and actors (actors often in ways not directly related to their performance - for example, the script for Casablanca was prepared with Bogart explicitly in mind.)

A given movie is the unique result of the interaction of *all* those myriad talents. Now, it may be convenient for organizational purposes to concentrate on the director and ignore everything else ... yet this convenience comes at a price.

For if you take the trouble to look beyond the director's name, there are other "signatures" in a movie just as clear and distinct as the director's. If you don't believe this, watch all the films written by Ben Hecht, or all the films shot by Gregg Toland, or all the films produced by Selznick.

Yet if you only look for one signature - the director's - you'll only see one signature. And that's the biggest problem with auteur theory. It needlessly narrows the viewer's vision.

Buck Turgidson

Phrenology

I don't really seriously disagree with much of anything in your post, audrey. I just think (as I've stated in my posts in the "A FILM BY" thread), that too many people automatically assume that the Director is the supreme master of any film and accord him almost total credit. There are some people who have earned this honorific (I mentioned Kubrick and David Lynch, but there are others.)

My thinking on the auteur theory has been deeply influenced by Harlan Ellison. He's provided probably the most clear and concise (and uniquely stylish) critique of the auteur theory that I've read.

A set of relevant quotes from the man:

"Stripped of superfluous rationalizations, the theory says that the director is the author of the film, on the basis of his or her "personal style" brought to bear on the material."

"...[T]he credit line preceding the title of a movie that proclaims it A FILM BY PETER BOGDANOVICH or A FILM BY HAL ASHBY. The Writers Guild has been fighting that form of screen credit for years. They are not films by Bogdanovich or Ashby(to select just a pair of obvious miscreants in this respect); they are films directed by Bogdanovich and Ashby. Bogdanovich did not write Paper Moon, Alvin Sargent did, from a novel by Joe David Brown titled Addie Pray. Hal Ashby didn't write Harold and Maude, Colin Higgins did."

"We're not discussing here those six directors worldwide who are the best, those six whose individual voices - whether you like their films or not - set them apart from all other directors who are merely craftpersons of greater or lesser ability...from, let us say, Spielberg and Walter Hill and Ridley Scott at the pinnacle to, let us say just as a rle of thumb, Elliot Silverstein, Otto Preminger and Irwin Allen in the pits...but all directors have that clout by implication. The myth has become the reality."

He goes on eventually to name the 6 (7 actually) who qualify for the tag: Altman, Coppola, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, Resnais and Bunuel.

He wrote that list in 1980 and prefaced it with: "Don't bother writing me and saying I left out this one or that one, or how could I include such-and-such whose film you don't understand. Just take the list and remember that I'm never wrong and shut up."

Numanoid

When I was studying auteur theory in college, we used to classify directors into 3 categories:

Technician = Someone who could get the job done.
Stylist = A director who brought a sense of individual style to each movie, leaving his "mark" if you will.
Auteur = A director who consistently not only utilized a similar style, but also was consistent in theme and vision. Usually auteurs also wrote their films.

We classified Spielberg as a stylist at the time and that may still be true. There is a definite style which Spielberg likes to use over and over...harsh backlighting, soft focus, low angles, "child's eye" perspective. It's one of the reasons many people point to Poltergeist and say, "Look, Spielberg obviously directed that!" It has his "style" all over it.

An auteur, to me, is someone who is very personally emotionally involved with a film, has a hand in or does all of the writing, gives it a definite personal "stamp". For example. I could watch a single scene from a movie I've never seen before and tell you if David Lynch is directing. I could read a plot synopsis of a movie and tell you whether it's a Woody Allen film. The same way you can read a page from a book and recognize that it's Shakespeare or Raymond Chandler.

MrN

Me personally, I only consider auteurs as those directors who had a hand in writing the story/screenplay (credited or not.)
And they have to have made at least 3 films - so you can see the common themes.