Auteur theory

[Fawkes]

Whatchyall think about it?

While I think it is important to recognize that in most cases the director is the primary creative force behind a project, declaring them as the "author" serves to, either intentionally or unintentionally, discredit the creative input of everybody else involved. Even if the director wrote, acted in, produced, edited, and shot the movie (which is pretty rare, I can't recall any instances of someone doing any more than three of those things in one film), that still doesn't take into account everybody else involved in the making of a movie. I mean, sure, the other primary creative roles such as the dp, writer, and editor are the people that we immediately tend to think about as being discredited by auteur theory, but what about the supporting actors, composers, production designers, etc. who serve enormously crucial roles in making a movie what it is? It takes an army to make a movie (or most movies).

However, the argument can be made that the director is someone who directs the work of all of the people involved in a movie, and therefore they are ultimately responsible for the final product, but most good directors allow for the personal creative input of the others working on a project. Citizen Kane wouldn't have been worth shit without Gregg Tolland. Then again, from what I've read, the making of Citizen Kane consisted largely of the inexperienced Welles telling Tolland what he wanted and relying on Tolland's technical expertise to execute that. I feel like I'm goin in circles here.

Also, this begs the comparison of a solo musician who records an album with audio engineers, backing musicians, and producers. Does anybody have a problem with Tom Waits releasing an album under the name of Tom Waits, cause a lot of people have a problem with possessory credits in movies?

I don't really know exactly where I stand on all this, any ideas?

[x359594]

According to the "auteur theory" or "politique des auteurs," for the majority of great narrative films the director is the primary author. Script, casting, acting, lighting, composition, camera movement, and sound are all part of a film's "style," and where to put the camera, when to start the shot and when to end the shot, how to cut the shots together and a myriad other decisions are made by those directors who are recognized as auteurs.



The auteur theory does not hold that all directors are auteurs however, some are described as matteurs en scene, directors who basically function as "traffic cops." Indeed, probably the majority of directors working in commercial cinema are little more than coordinators of the productions on which they work.


Your example of Citizen Kane (Welles third film but first feature) fails to account for the excellence and stylistic consistency of of Welles' other films; The Magnificent Ambersons was shot by Stanley Cortez, Touch of Evil was shot by Russell Metty, and Welles' great essay film F for Fake had multiple cinematographers.


The principal argument for identifying a given director as an auteur is the stylistic consistency apparent in a number of films made by the same filmmaker at different times at different studios with different crews. Particularly in Hollywood movies of the classic era, each studio had a "house style", but the films of the same auteur working at different times at Warner Bros., MGM, Paramount, Columbia, 20th Century Fox or RKO transcends the house style of the respective studios. For example, a Hitchcock film whether made at Fox, RKO or Warner Bros. is identifiable as the work of the same artist.


The auteur works with an "army," but he or she deploys that army to serve his or her particular creative ends. That's basically what the auteur theory is getting at.

[praxis1966]

As far as your specific criticisms, or perhaps more appropriately concerns, I don't necessarily think that directors generally get the bulk of the credit in most instances. On the one hand, as far as the public consciousness goes, the "star effect" generally takes precedence. In other words, I know far, far more people who when making a decision to see a movie base that decision on who the actors are as opposed to who the director(s) is/are. As a film snob, I don't generally fall into that category (my selection process usually goes director, writer, then actor in that order), but I'm the exception and not the rule.

On the other hand, when Oscar time rolls around and the winner for Best Picture gets announced, who goes on stage to claim the statuette? The producer(s), that's who. Never mind that all the other folks you're talking about (writers, dp's, lighting techs, composers, effects personnel, editors, costume and set designers) are all recognized both when the credits roll and when awards time rolls around. So I kind of dispute the idea that directors get undue credit for their work generally speaking.

All that being said, it's kind of difficult for me to reconcile auteur theory with my own whacky anarcho principles. It seems that there's an enforced hierarchy that's inherently dictatorial, but I'm not so sure that's the way it always works. Of course you're always going to hear stories about people like Jean-Pierre Melville who was kind of a tyrant on set, squeezing all of his actors into these tiny character archetypes. Then again, you'll also hear about people like Cassavetes, always a champion of improvisation and by all accounts an "actor's director." As for the interaction with the technical staffers on a movie set, I'd say that the nature of the beast has to be collaboration as opposed to coercion given that it's impossible for any one person to singularly have the expertise to execute any kind of vision, let alone a "grand artistic" one.

Finally, and I don't know if this is always the way it works or not because I'm not a film producer, but I would surmise that there's an element of voluntarism involved when technical and creative people decide to sign on to a project. You have to figure that on some level people choose to work with certain directors, the acknowledged auteurs especially, because they enjoy the overarching artistic/stylistic visions and techniques that said director has employed in the past and want a shot at helping her/him implement it.

As for the Tom Waits analogy, I suppose I kind of do have a problem with that (especially as a bassist whose name would never appear on the album cover of a solo artist's CD)... But then again I've always enjoyed soccer and The Smiths far more than I ever did tennis and Morrissey.

[x359594]

...I don't necessarily think that directors generally get the bulk of the credit in most instances. On the one hand, as far as the public consciousness goes, the "star effect" generally takes precedence. In other words, I know far, far more people who when making a decision to see a movie base that decision on who the actors are as opposed to who the director(s) is/are...

From the very earliest days of commercial cinema there have been a handful of directors who had their "name above the title": D.W. Griffith, Cecil B. De Mille, Ernst Lubitsch and James Cruze had their names above the title in the teens, and in the following decades there were about a dozen or so directors who names were selling points. But these are the exceptions, so you're basically right.


...I would surmise that there's an element of voluntarism involved when technical and creative people decide to sign on to a project. You have to figure that on some level people choose to work with certain directors, the acknowledged auteurs especially, because they enjoy the overarching artistic/stylistic visions and techniques that said director has employed in the past and want a shot at helping her/him implement it...

I think you've neatly summed up the factors that make an auteur.

[Rakhmetov]

"... film auteur is one of the most ridiculous expressions I've ever heard ..."--
Gore Vidal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLyvszhFAC4

[x359594]

"... film auteur is one of the most ridiculous expressions I've ever heard ..."-- Gore Vidal...

Vidal is biased because of several unhappy experiences with Hollywood. Of course he's witty and funny but he doesn't seriously engage with with la politique des auteurs (if that's a more acceptable expression.)