ANDREW SARRIS NOTES ON THE AUTEUR THEORY IN 1962 {As fat a8 Tknow, there is no definition ofthe auteur theory in the English lan guage, that is, by any American or British criti. Truffaut has recently gone to great pains to emphasize that the aufeurthoory was merely a polemical weapon fora given time und a given place, and [am willing to take him at his word. But lest be accused of misappropriating a theory noone wants anyroore, Twill give the Cahiers critics Fall credit for the original formulation ofan idea that reshaped my thinking on the cin- cma, Firs of all, how does the auteur theory differ fom a straightforward theory of Girectors fan Cameron's article “Films, Directors, and Critics” in Movie of Septem- ‘er, 1962, makes an interesting comment on this issue: “The assumption that und lis all the writing in Movie is thatthe director isthe author of a film, the person who ives it any distinctive quality. There are quite large exceptions, with which T shall {eal later” Sofa, s0 good, atleast forthe auteur theory, which even allows for excep- tions. However, Cameron continues: “On the whole, we accept the cinema of direc- tors, although without going to the farthes-out extremes of the la politique des ‘auteurs, which makes it difficult to think of a bad director making a good film and Almost impossible to think of a good director making a bad one.” We are back Bazin again, although Cameron naturally uses different examples. That three other= Wise divergent critics ike Bavin, Roud, and Cameron make essentially the same point bout the auteur theory suggests a common fear of is abuses believe there isa mi ‘understanding here about whet the auteur theory actually elsims, particularly since the theory ise isso vague atthe present time First of all, the auteur theory, atleast as 1 understand it and now intend to express it, claims neither the gift of prophecy nor the option of exiracinematie perception. Directors, even auteurs, donotalwaysrun true to form. and the cic can never assume that abad director will always make bed film. No, not always, but almost always, and thats the point. Whats @ bad director, but a director who has made many bad films? peleiiete:Benn Oe eee er tt 382 ‘THE FILM ARTIST ‘What isthe problem then? Simply tis: The badness of a director is not necessaily considered the badness of a film. If Joseph Pevney directed Garbo, Cherkassov, (Olivier, Belmondo, and Harriet Andersson in The Cherry Orchard, the resulting spec: tacle might not be entirely devoid of merit with so many subsidiary auteurs to cover up for Soe, In fact, with this east and his literary property, a Lumet might be safer than 1 Welles. The reaites of casting apply to directors as wel ws to actors, but the auteur theory would demand the gamble with Welles, ithe were willing “Marlon Brando has shovin us tha a film can be made without a director, Indeed, One-Eyed Jacks is more enteraining than many films with directors. A directr- conscious rite would find it difficult o say anything good or bad about direction that is nonexistent. One can talk here about photography editing, acting, but not direction, The film even has personality bu, like The Longest Day and Mutiny on the Bounty, i is-a cipher diectorlly, Obviously, the aueur theory cannot possibly cover every ‘vagrant charm ofthe cinema, Nevertaeless, the first premise ofthe auteur theory isthe technics} competence ofa director asa criterion of value. A badly directed ora undi- rected film has no importance in a critical scale of values, but oe ean make interest ing conversation about the subject, the script, the acting, the color, the photography. the editing, the masic, the costumes, the decor, and so forth. Tat isthe nature of the ‘medium. You always get more for your money than mere at. Now, by the auteur te ony if a director has no technical competence, no elementary fi For the cinems, he js automatically cast out from tne pantheon of directors. A great director has to e at Teast a good director. This is ruc in any art. What constitutes directorial talent is more dificult to define abstractly. There is Tess disagreement, however, on this fist evel of the auteur theory than there will be Istr. “The second premise of the auteur theory is the distinguishable personality ofthe director as a erterion of value. Over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain recurrent characteristics of style, which serve as bis signature, The way a film leo tnd moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels. This is an area where American directors are generally superior to foreign directo. Because so much of the American cinema is commissioned, a director is forced to express his personality through the visual weatment of material rather than through the literary content of the material, A Cukor, who works with ll sorts of projects, has a more developed abstract style than a Bergman, who is fre to develop his ov scripts. Notthat Bergman lacks personality, but his work has declined with the deple- tion of his ideas largely because his technique never equaled hs sensibility. Joseph L- Mankiewicz and Billy Wilder are other examples of wnterdirecwors without ade uate technical mastery. By contrast, Douglas Sirk and Otto Preminger have moved Up the scale because their miscellaneous projects reveal a stylistic consistency “The third and ultimave premise of the auteur theory is concerned with interiet meaning, the ultimate glory ofthe cinema as an art, Interior meaning is extrapolated from the tension between a director's personality and his material, This conception of interior meaning comes close to what Astruc defines as mise en scbne, but nor quite Itis not quit the vision of the world a director projects nor quite his attitude toward life tis ambiguous, in any literary sense, because part ofits imbedded in the st of the cinema and cannot be rendered in noncinematic terms. Traffaut has called it hiseamnenae NOTES ON THE AUTEUR THEORY IN 1962 563 the temperature ofthe director on the set, and that sa close approximation ofits pro fessional aspect. Dare I come out and say what I think it 0 be is an élam ofthe soul? Lest [seem unduly mystical, let me hasten toad that all T mean by “soul” is tha imangible difference between one personality and another, all other things being equal. Sometimes, this difference is expressed by no more than a beats hesitation in the mhythm ofa film. Inone sequence of La Régle du Jeu, Renoir gallops up the Stairs, tums to his right with lurching moverment, stops in hoplike uncertainty when his name is called by a coquetish maid, and, thea, with marvelous postefiex continuity, resumes his bearishly sbambling journey tothe heroine's boudoir. IFT could describe the musical grace note of that momentary suspension, nd I can’t I might be able to provide a more precise definition ofthe auteur theory. As itis, all Tean do is point at the specific beguties of interior meaning on the sereen and, later, catalogue the moments of recognition. ‘The three premises of the auteur theory may be visualized as three concentric cr cles: the outer circle as technique; the middle cree, personal style; and the inner cle, interior meaning. The corresponding roles ofthe director may be designated as those ofa technician, a stylist, and an auteur. There is no prescribed course by which a director passes through the three circles. Godard once remarked that Viseonti had evolved from & metteur en scene wo an auteur, whereas Rossellini had evolved from an auteur to metteur en scbne, From opposite directions, they emerged with com. parable status. Minnelli began and remained in the second circle a a stylist; Buriuel was an auteur even before he had assembled the technique of the fis cree, Tech- nique is simply the ability to put a film together with some clarity and coherenee. Nowadays. its possible to become a dircctor without knowing too much about the technical side, even the crucial functions of photography and editing. An expert pro= 4uction crew could probably cover up fora chimpanzee in the director's chait, HOW do you tell the genuine director from the quasichimpanzee’ After a given number of films, a pater is established In fact, the auteur theory itself isa parter theory in constant flux. 1 would never ‘endorse a Ptolemaic constellation of directors in fxed onbit. ALthe moment, my ist of aueurs runs something Tike this through the fist twenty: Ophuls, Renoi Mizoguchi, Hiceheock, Chaplin, Ford, Welles, Dreyer, Rossellini, Murnau, Griffith Stemberg, Eisenstein, von Stroheim, Buel, Bresson, Hawks, Lang, Flaherty, Vigo. This list is somewhat weighted toward seniority and established reputations. In ime, some of these auteurs will rise, some will fall, and some willbe displaced either by new directors or rediscovered ancients. Again, the exaet order is Tess important zhan the specific definitions of these and as many as two hundred other potential auteurs {would hardly expect any other etic in the world fally to endorse this list, especially ‘faith, Only after thousands of films have been revaluated, will any personal pan- theon have « reasonably objective validity, The task of validating the auteur theory is an enormous one, and ihe end will never be insight. Meanwhile, the auteur habit of collecting random films in directorial bundles wil serve posterity with ut least aten- lative classification Although the awewr theory emphasizes the body ofa directors work rather than isolated masterpieces, it is expected of great directors tat they make great films every564 THE FILM ARTIST so often. The only possible exception to this rule Tcan think of is Abel Gance, whose greatness i largely a function of his aspiration. Even with Gance, La Rowe is as close to being a great film as any single work of Flaherty’s. Not that single works matter that much. As Renoir has observed, a director sped his life on variations ofthe same film, ‘Two recent films ~ Boccaccio °70 and The Seven Capital Sins—unwittingly rein- forced the auteur theory by confirming the relative standing of the many directors involved. IT had not seen either film, I would have anticipated that the order of merit in Boccaccio ‘70 would be Visconti, Fellini, and De Sica, and in The Seven Capital Sins Godard, Chubrol, Demy, Vadim, De Broca, Molinaro. (homme, Ionesco's stage director and an unknown quantity in advance, turned aut to be the worst ofthe Jot.) There might be some argument about the relative badness of De Broca and Moli- rnaro, but, otherwise, the directors ran true to form by almost any objective criterion of value, However, the main point here is that even in these frothy, ultracommercial servings of entertainment, the contribution of each director had less in common sty- listcally with the work of other directors on the project than with his own previous work, Sometimes, « great deal of com must be husked to yield a few kemels of intemal ‘meaning. [ recently saw Every Night ar Fight, one of the many maddeningly routine films Raoul Walsh has directed in his long career. This 1935 effort featured George Rafi, Alice Faye, Frances Langford, and Patsy Kelly in one of those familiar plots about radio shows of the period. The film keeps moving along in the pleasantly unpre. tentious manner one would expect of Walsh until one incongruously intense scene ‘with George Raft thrashing about in his sleep, revealing his inner fears in mumbling dreamm-talk, The gitl he loves comes into the room in the midst of his unconscious avowals of feeling and listens sympathetically. This unusual scene was later ampli fied in High Sierra with Humphrey Bogan and Ida Lupino. The point is that one of the screen's most virile directors employed an essentially feminine narrative device to dramatize the emotional vulnerability of his heroes. If I had not been aware of Walsh in Every Night at Bight, the crucial link to Higk Sierra would have passed unnoticed. Such ure the joys of the auteur theory 1962 PETER WOLLEN FROM SIGNS AND MEANING IN THE CINEMA THE AUTEUR THEORY Te pig des acre we Oy Ane Sas cals deel ens bit ap oc sown or Caton soe ch te ing fin mapa worl hang fm bi comiaun date ea cena wis wh sung insta aces we tee mo al teers f dns, sha tone cme cel swine tte at hase Wor hal preva on dame ance en Tere wes pi cantons nae nh ne hs even pore Fea ste fit hat Anette tae fom France lr he Vive and the German Occupation. Consequently, when they reappeared after the Liberation thy cam wihafaue™and ened ington rssh ee AgloSanoncoumes temic. A seta, tee erating oes ‘eR ner ote ce cretion thd avs ben Pte oe che sd he tigen ann he ample Ton Caveat ee ars Cord wih ts cite was Ue apiece Pa Coed as Serko et Langage ater ssa Lic Go xed i Tego th Cinque a5 os te tana homie ns wp eed ducon ft tin ede ica wich ect a Abels ech cies n wanchdpeon e beir dea ot alpen and casera dese Ths yew writ ipl wae ebro terms ina manfeoo®colesive sateen Asa result oad Be aero ad sep omer oe ne aise chs dene nee ale che hina os anova fcone ates Tis eerste ee Arvaed and pani is a Messing she Cama was pabsbedy the BEET Tosti in 1997