Director != auteur, at least not necessarily. The Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Selznick, Val Lewton are all auteurs in one way or another. Also, how is “one or two individuals organize the collaborative efforts of all involved” not auteurism, if the personality(ies) of those individual(s) radiate throughout a career?
Because the work is COLLABORATIVE. Do people talk about the history of the theatre as having “auteurs”? Auteur theory was useful fifty years ago when academics wanted to “legitimize” movies as an art form (as though they weren’t already) and the theory made it easy to develop a canon of important figures. But the nature of the site itself plays towards this director-centric interpretation. How many non-directors are listed under your “auteurs” list in your profile? Did you even have the option? Film is a collaborative medium, and I think viewing major figures as impresarios and not “auteurs” is far more accurate. It’s silly to think that one or two, or even three people “author” a film.
And, as I just stated, but to reiterate, “one or two individuals organiz[ing] the collaborative efforts of all involved” is really the definition of an impresario(s) and not an auteur. They’re not authoring, they’re organizing.
You’re certainly right that it’s not the only way. It may not even be the best way, but there are artists who fall into that certain category and rightfully claim authorship of there work. And I think the guys at cahiers were really making a statement. I think it was more important to them that cinema was taken seriously as an art form on par with the novel and painting and so forth.
I didn’t realize that posting here meant I was automatically ascribing the Auteur Theory to every film ever made. I must be some kind of moron.
We have framed our site under The Auteurs moniker not because we are strict auteurists or wish to only view cinema from this angle, but because it represents our dedication to cinematic artistry. We want to show only distinctive, visionary films, whether their inspiration comes from the single mind of a director, or from a star, subject, country, culture, or any other deciding factor. Our “niche” is in using online distribution as a means to show these distinctive films, many of which, like those of Philippe Garrel, are tremendous works of cinematic art but which have trouble finding distribution in the current conservative climate.
and if it you say it correctly, it sounds cool!
Bill H makes a sound point. It’s kind of like someone from Baltimore saying they’re going on a tour.
Bill H, you are awesome.
Unlike some ‘solitary’ art forms such as literature and painting, making a film (or staging a play) involves a collaborative approach which is dependent on the expertise of a number of individuals who share a cinematic vision and aim to create an experience that will appeal to a mass audience. This is the case for many mainstream movies were financial profit and celebratory prestige is a key motivation. For me, however, the auteur subverts the need for fame and wealth. Take for example Derek Jarman who recognises that his films could not be made without the contribution of others, but, nevertheless, adopts material that a mainstream studio and audiences would shun – Latin dialogue, obscure philosophers and fragmented, non-linear imagery (culminating in a film that offers an audience a blue screen). The concept of an auteur is relevant because only they have the courage to fight for funding to produce work that will only attract people from the margins of the film going public. It is the auteur who dismisses convention and extends the cinematic art form. Fortunately the list is a long one which spans over a century of the moving image. I believe that the talent of Vigo, Sirk, Fassbinder and Greenaway rank alongside other great artists such as Caravaggio, Shakespeare, Bernini and Kafka.
The Auteur theory to me doesn’t negate the collaborative effort of film, but rather recognizes a consistency in craft that an individual has from film to film. This individual tends to be the director, though I think producers and actors can do the same.
Moderated
God … I just love Shelley Duvall.
HEY…
did anyone else just realize that
Theauteurs
is a portmanteau for
Theater + Auteur
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
theater + auteurs = theauteurs
brilliant. I will give you credit when I explain in a few years how I came up with the name.. (-*_)
Nice not to have to read another all-or-nothing-at-all debate. So. Film is more often than not a collaborative process. In certain cases, we might want to identify a particularly special conception, treatment and envisaged style on the part of the director, embraced by all the other collaborators on the project, as warranting the description of “auteur”. In the case of many other directors, whose directing ability is solid, but whose vision isn’t quite as definitive/comprehensive, the description of “auteur” need not be applied. And in the case of a film like Citizen Kane we might want to identify more than one auteur (cf. Pauline Kael’s “Raising Kane” and her argument for Mankiewicz being credited with as much authorship on the project as Welles).
I happen to see auteur as a positive descriptor and there are certainly filmmakers I’d be happy to refer to as auteurs. For the visionary, independent and idiosyncratic strengths of their direction. Perhaps that’s why we often refer to directors as filmmakers; they are on occasion the individual with by far the largest single percentage of intellectual and creative ownership over that extraordinary idea that ultimately becomes a great film.
Anyone else read “The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite Of American Film History” by David Kipen (Melville House Publishing, 2006)? He essentially dismisses the director-driven auteur theory and suggests one driven by the screenwriters. An interesting read, though it would have made for a better essay than the short book it is.
I’d say very often the screenwriter is an equal anchor of the film. what would casablanca be without its’ dialogue?
To me, a true auteur is the creative gel of a film, the person whose vision is integral to the creation of the film. These auteurs are recognizable by a certain style, a certain vision, a certain look that makes their films uniquely their own. There are just a few of these auteurs, those we revere on this site, that deserve the name. Their films are instantly recognizable as their own. Who do I mean: autuers like Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Godard, Kubrick, Greenaway – you add your own. These are the people we are celebrating on this site, as everyone else is just the director of the movie, which, indeed is a collaborative effort. The director of most films could be replaced by anyone else, and the films would be the same. Auteur films are all unique to each auteur – never to be duplicated, even by the individual auteur. Uniqueness is what sets them apart. Yes, there are a small number of actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, or producers that also serve this creative function, and they are also talked about on this site, but secondary to the auteurs, who are the film artists this site is most concerned to recognize.
I agree completely with Steve H. that these auteurs belong in the same exalted company as great writers, painters, musicians, or other creative visionaries. They are a dying breed – that’s why this site is trying to preserve them and those who would follow. Genius must be recognized in any medium and it is rare. Aren’t we all unique too, and deserving of the name the auteurs?
Does that mean that it’s is place reserved only to an elite? that’s disturbing. I come from a place where they invented the “autheur theory”. I guess to-day this theory is no more valuable : it’s not the same économical ground, ideological too I might say. There are no auteurs today, or to say different (I don’t want to schock anybody since it’s not my will) cinema is the auteur, cinema as a complex scar tissue of actors (directors, cinematographers, editor…), or cinema as history of the art.
In my country an auteur, is just like stevie Wonder on the talking books album : does everything, eats everyone, thinks locally, brings the coffe, except in my country there’s no stevie Wonder but an old bunch of blind men, didn’t see the world had changed while they were autering.
I do agree with the collective vision of auteur, not the individual one. Understanding that there used to be auteurs, but no more are they, or too few resisting in auteurland for the sake of the art, a vision of it anyway.
when you say porte-manteau, we say mot-valise, ain’t that funny?
I believe a “purest auteur” can only exist on smaller projects with a limited crew. Where one person really is calling all of the shots from the start. Perfect example: the garage project on this website!
So we’re the auteurs! Not them!
There’s nothing wrong with the auteur theory, it’s just that not everyone is an auteur. Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa – you know theyre the geniuses behind their movies.
Antoine is right… it is a very collaborative medium… and the auteur is usually the one who controls the collaborations, there is the difference between Casablanca and Breathless. Curtiz was given a package deal and made the most of it, Godard controlled every step.
The Auteur theory is not perfect, it explains some films but not all. It is elitist to a degree, but great art is usually created by a strong vision, usually singular, not by committee.
Michel! Right on!
Garage is the home of the true, modern Auteurs at theAuteurs!
As for the Auteur Theory. All I know is it doesn’t suck. The idea was to create a individualistic film that consciously is having a direct conversation with the audience. Inspired by Marxist theory they wanted to create films that assault the consumerist perspective of entertainment and create a process to become engaged in!
The camera-stylo! The director’s choices in movement and angle and al the things he does that influence the film define it’s ultimate style. Not to say the Cinematographer, the Art Director, and everyone else is a big pen to be used. That’s too base. They’re more like the musicians in an orchestra or the players in American football- they are conducted by a maestro! Without this Maestro, with his or her influences and the way he or she is influenced as well, it is merely a film. The Auteur, the general, the poetic director, gives the film a unique voice.
I defend the theory. I think it’s too simple to say it gives the director ALL the credit. I praise the work of everyone involved. They are all geniuses- Walter Murch, Christopher Doyle, Michael Kahn, Polly Platt -yet what guides them and makes the film a personal work of art is that magic from the director (and in many cases, arguably, at times obviously, the screenwriter).
I second Maestro theory. What happens when you get all of the greatest soccer players together on one team? It’s probably pretty chaotic. The same with an orchestra with fantastic players. With no one to conduct them they will most likely not blend with each other, the dynamics will be off, everyone would play at their own tempo…not something you would want to hear. The conductor holds it all together and gives everyone a direction and focus, tells them where they are going, how they are going to get there, and why they are going there.
There are times though when I think the term auteur becomes an entity made up of several people. Quite frequently auteurs will tend to use the same talent – actors, producers, composers, etc. – over and over again. So much so that they become part of the legend so to speak. Let’s take Ozu for example. In many of his films we see the same faces; such as Chisu Ryu and Setsuko Hara. Kurosawa used Mifune quite a bit. While it’s a testament to their acting abilities, I believe they are also part of the “auteur” sometimes.
I just stumbled on this thread. With a great art film, everything is under the director’s control. The actors are chosen specifically by the director, the music, the lighting schemes, the look, etc. The best directors are control freaks in a sense. They do it all except the actual projecting in the projection booth.
@ Justin
That’s a little absolute, don’t you think?
What about Altman? Renoir? Michael Powell?
Those are just three examples of many great directors who give a lot of space to their actors and technicians.
Okay, so this topic is a bit confounding, since I have what I like to say are my own principles of film. Frankly, it really varies from director to director; some directors do not involve themselves in all aspects of a film (including the camera), although I feel as though they should. I know that the auteur theory has its flaws, especially because some screen writers deserve justification of their works, like Charlie Kaufman, or like Graham Greene (although he worked with Carol Reed, who could be considered an auteur in his own right).
Also, not every director who rocks will always make a good film, like many of the Cahiers staff believed (or, rather, like many of them SAID they believed). For instance, as much as I love Turffaut, you can’t say the man didn’t have a hiccup here and there. It really is just something that you have to find your own footing on whether you believe it, or not.
Savvy
I think auteurism becomes a lot more defensible and useful once one stops trying to attribute personality and intentionality to it, and begins to think of it instead of a system of classification and interpretation.
To classify a film as Tarantino-esque, for example, does not necessarily mean that Tarantino the man is responsible for everything that makes it a work of art. Rather it refers to the stylistic similarities that it shares with other films grouped in the same system (i.e. other films that are directed by Tarantino). It’s a fool’s game to try to guess after the fact who did what on a film set. Artistic inspiration doesn’t matter so much as the finished product does.
If you use a body of work to evaluate and illuminate a new body of work, that’s perfectly acceptable and defensible. If you begin insisting that a certain personality is responsible for the successes of a work, I think you’re heading into the realm of conjecture, and verging on trivia. When people refer to Tarantino, the auteur, it’s more helpful to think of it more as “Tarantino”… something separate from the person on set making films. The embodiment of “his” style is the referent, not the person per se…
Once I started thinking about auteurism in these terms, I found it less objectionable and less a fanboyish cult of personality, for sure.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
I mean, c’mon, do you really want to argue that the Director is the be all and end all of the film? Certainly movies have been made more by an impresario system, where one or two individuals organize the collaborative efforts of all involved. How else would you explain the quality of such films as those made by Powell & Pressburger, or producer led films by people like Selznik, Corman, and Bruckheimer. Certainly all those great Astaire/Rogers films aren’t the result of Mark Sandrich being a great auteur, they had to do with Astaire and Hermes Pan and (most of the time) Sandrich and the producer working together. Seriously, auteur theory sucks.