Understanding Auteur Theory

What is Auteur Theory?

There are various debates underlining the existence of Auteurs; how to define an Auteur has been
much theorized. The original concept took birth in the pages of the Cahiers du Cinema in the 1!"s#
particularl$ voiced b$ %rench &ouvelle 'ague filmmaker# %rancois Truffaut.
Truffaut was both ver$ critical of the trend in %rench cinema to identif$ the author as the screenwriter
and ver$ aware of both his# and his other Nouvelle Vague counterparts( signature st$les. )n 1!*
Truffaut wrote an essa$ entitled A Certain Tendency in French Cinema# in which he identified the
Director as artist or author [auteur]. +ithin his definition though# he made a clear distinction
between the metteur en scne , a director who simpl$ translates the screenpla$ on to the screen , and
the auteur - the artist who makes it his own. )t was Andr- .azin who coined the concept of Auteur
Theory in Cahiers# .azin identified that what distinguished Auteurs from other /irectors was a specific
signature 0a conflict between their life and their film expression1 that crossed their oeuvre.
)n his seminal essa$ Notes on the Auteur Theory 01231# American critic Andrew 4arris desired to
clarif$ the Auteur Theor$ for the American )ndustr$ and 5ritics. 6e defined the Auteur as more than 7ust
an author or artist of a film# and expressed levels# all of which a filmmaker must show a flair for in order
to be classified as an Auteur;
a filmmaker should be technicall$ competent [a technician]
he should have a particular artist signature to his films [a stylist]
that there should exist a sense of the personal battles between the filmmaker(s
personalit$# life and influences and the diegesis of the film [an auteur].
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11
4arris visualised his theor$ on Auteurism like so:
The diagram represents both the necessit$ for Auteurs to be 4t$lists and Technicians# but also that the
ma7orit$ of %ilm /irectors are technicians# some are st$lists# whilst onl$ a small minorit$ could be
considered Auteurs.
Criticisms?
;auline <ael famousl$ =uestioned 4arris( ideas in her essa$ Circles and Squares# <ael argues that the
use of continuous displa$ of repetitive motifs without an$ development is not genius or authorship# but in
fact decline; establishing the /irector as one whose st$le has stagnated. 4he also suggests a certain
introspectiveness , perhaps self,centredness of Auteur work , opposed to /irector(s who approach the
themes and narratives of a film in a wa$ specificall$ relevant to the film(s context rather than their own.
4he also criti=ues the necessit$ for a great /irector 0Auteur1 to exhibit technical competenc$ and
compliance# because , for <ael , one of the assets of great /irectorship is the ver$ breaking of taught
rules and experimentation with the medium. +hen she considers the middle circle and the personalit$ of
the /irector as a presence in films# <ael explains:
When a famous director makes a good movie, we look at the movie, we dont think about the directors
personality; when he makes a stinker we notice his familiar touches because theres not much else to
watch. 02911
<ael continues to criti=ue the inner circle also; her criticisms based on the fact one can overlook a
masterful film and celebrate a mediocre# or poor work based on how man$ features of a /irector(s
signature it includes# rather than examining the work as a whole.
4ome other criticisms of the Auteur theor$ are:
Film Making is a Collaborative Process
)f film,making involves a collaborative commitment from a number of people# often hundreds# how can
one person be responsible for the signature and st$le of the entire film>
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11
Genre Studies
?ften we identif$ a particular Auteur with a particular genre# for example Alfred 6itchcock with the
suspense thriller# Tim .urton with the fantas$ film# however it can be debated whether a filmmaker is
trul$ an Auteur when the$ stick within the formulaic and restrictive nature of one specific genre. 4hould
a /irector be defined b$ their @enre or not>
Auteur as Reinvention of Stardom
5ould Auteurism be seen as a label to aid marketing# helping to make particular /irectors stars to
attract a fan base.
4hould the$ not be able to reach a sense of signature and personal conflict between their own realit$
and the diegesis throughout an$ genre> /oes this then obscure the filmmaker(s sense of being an
Auteur>
4tanle$ <ubrick is a filmmaker often hailed as an Auteur# but a filmmaker who has worked across a wide
range of genres# are there continuousl$ repeated themes and underl$ing ideologies present in the
ma7orit$ of his films> Aes. )s there a sense of signature throughout his films> Aes. )s he a confident
technician of filmmaking> A certain $es. Thus# perhaps an Auteur should be someone capable of
crossing genres and experimenting with the film form as a whole>
The Writer
)s the Auteur# not the Author of the script# the visionar$ of the image> %or example# one might consider
/avid %incher a contemporar$ Auteur and his classic Fight Club as a Auteur %ilm. 6owever# doesn(t
5huck ;alahniuk(s book define Fight Club over %incher(s st$le> 6e has his own fan site:
http:BBchuckpalahniuk.netB
How should you approach an Auteur study?
%or A3 %ilm 4tudies $ou do not need to debate whether a /irector is an auteur# nor do $ou need to
philosophise over the arguments regarding Auteur theor$. )f $ou wish to adopt an Auteur stud$ for $our
research pro7ect# $ou should choose a /irector that $ou consider to be an Auteur and investigate their
signature st$le. %or the A3 %ilm research coursework the word count is limited# therefore it is essential
that $ou select one fundamental asset of the /irector(s signature and explore that in detail. Aou ma$
want to include a brief paragraph earl$ in the research presentation script regarding what an Auteur is#
but be$ond this $ou should not include theor$ and debates about Auteurism.
6owever# it is important to note that $ou should select a /irector who has a prominent st$le across their
films# someone who is well established and on whom there is a wealth of resources that $ou can select
from for $our research. ?therwise $ou will disadvantage $ourself from the beginning. Therefore be
careful to not 7ust select the /irector of $our favourite film.
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11
+hen $ou look at a /irector(s work it is therefore important that $ou consider the following: their oeuvre;
an$ visual and technical st$le; their background, personal and professional; recurring themes in their
films; whether there is an overarching philosoph$ behind their work# and what this ma$ be.
Oeuvre and Visual / Technical Style
Cook on www.imdb.com at the /irector(s filmograph$# watch as man$ of their films as $ou can. 5reate a
chart# such as the one below that lists character t$pes# narratives# themes# cinematographic techni=ues#
mise,en,scDne# sound# editing st$le and other down the left hand column and make notes on each film
as $ou watch them.
6ighlight facets# which are repetitive across a number of the /irector(s films# and make a list of the
assets which $ou think define the /irector(s st$le. /o an$ films stand out as significantl$ different to the
rest of the /irector(s oeuvre> )f an$ films significantl$ contrast the rest# complete some background
research, did the /irector have pressure from a 4tudio for this particular pro7ect> +ere the$ not given
full creative control> ;erhaps it was earl$ in their career and the$ had not defined their personal st$le
$et> ?r as an independent /irector the$ were making Auteur pieces# $et when the$ moved to 6oll$wood
their films were fairl$ conventional> Cooking into the production background of each film and for an$
interviews of the /irector about each pro7ect will provide $ou with this information.
The exam board re=uires $ou to investigate three films# from $our primar$ research which three films do
$ou feel would be the best> Are there three clearl$ Auteur pieces from different stages in the /irector(s
career> 5ould $ou contrast one or two definite Auteur pieces with another of which the /irector had less
creative control>
Their Background | Personal and Professional
This will re=uire secondar$ research which ma$ come in the form of magazineB internet articles# /'/
commentaries or extras and books written on the /irector. Auteur directors often approach filmmaking
with a clear philosoph$ on life which influences how the$ represent the world on screen. This philosoph$
is influenced b$ their life experiences# this ma$ be their childhood# a film mentor# experiences at war or a
feeling of social exclusion 0some of these are ke$ to the Auteur signature of the case studies included1.
Aou might find that some of $our secondar$ sources explicitl$ reveal what has influenced the /irector(s
st$le# however for some /irectors $ou ma$ have to consider interviews or books written on them and
their work more carefull$ and come to $our own conclusions b$ comparing this data to that# $ou
discovered from $our primar$ textual anal$sis.
Recurring Themes in Their Films
To consider recurring themes# $ou will need to combine primar$ and secondar$ research; $ou will notice
thematic patterns from $our own textual anal$sis however in film 7ournals# interviews and books
dedicated to the /irector(s work; $ou will also be priv$ to information regarding themes in their work
which $ou ma$ B or ma$ not have considered $ourself. This ma$ come from the /irector revealing their
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11
intention to explore certain themes for a personal reason# or it ma$ come from an academic who
anal$ses the /irector(s films in light of a particular theme.
Overarching Philosophy Behind Their Work
This is the element which will reall$ help in defining $our =uestion and understanding the /irector(s
Auteur signature# and $ou will discover this through appl$ing secondar$ reading to textual anal$sis. Are
there significant statements in interviews that the /irector sa$s about the world# or particular influences
the$ continuousl$ discuss> )s this philosoph$ made visuall$ or technicall$ apparent in their films> 6ow
do the$ achieve this> 5ould an$ of the films in their oeuvre be considered not to fit this philosoph$>
+h$> /id the$ lose creative control of that pro7ect or did their philosoph$ change at some point in their
career>
Structuring an Auteur Research Project
1. Title
The title should be a =uestion and should stipulate the specific facet of the Auteur(s signature $ou are
going to tackle. %or example:
How is the clash between estern !ntrusion and Traditional "a#anese Values
re#resented in the Films o$ Hayao %iya&a'i(
Al$red Hitchcoc') %aster o$ Sus#ense* how does Hitchcoc' create sus#ense
through the technical and visual style o$ his $ilms(
How are e+istentialist themes e+#lored in the $ilms o$ Stanley ,ubric'(
A %an o$ %odern Noir) How does -avid Fincher tac'le the contem#orary citysca#e
in his $ilms(
How does ,ursosawa e+#lore ideas o$ descent and turmoil in his #ost.war $ilms(
2. Introduction
6ere $ou should introduce the Auteur(s signature# a brief biograph$ of them and the E films $ou should
stud$.
3. Main Presentation
This should be split into four sections:
Introduction to the Ideas
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Case Study 3
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11
The introduction to the ideas should be 3,E paragraphs; in which $ou explain the background and
influences of the /irector in more detail# and explore how this is apparent generall$ across their oeuvre.
)n this section $ou ma$ want to include some cultural background# if relevant# for example in a
presentation script on Fa$azaki $ou ma$ want to discuss the social contrasts between traditional Gapan
and 5apitalist America# and link this to the context of Fa$azaki(s own life.
Then through each case stud$ $ou should explore how the film expresses or challenges this auteur
st$le. Aou should alwa$s start with a brief introduction to the film 01,3 sentences maximum1 and then
explain $our ke$ point# before proving $our point with some detailed anal$sis of the film. This should
then be followed up with a conclusion. The conclusion for each case stud$ ma$ link back to the
/irector(s context 0their influencesB backgroundB philosoph$1. )t is good to think of the structure for
writing each case stud$ as such:
A. How The Auteurs Signature Is Present Within The Film
HA clear statement backed up with secondar$ researchI
B. Analysis Of The Film
HJvidence from primar$ research using film language# but alwa$s linking back to the ke$ pointI
C. Conclusion
H6ow does this evidence of the Auteur(s signature link back to their overarching philosoph$B backgroundB
influences 0Jrgo making them an Auteur rather than a st$list>I
4. Conclusion
The final conclusion should briefl$ link the Auteur(s signature to the three case studies and then wrap up
b$ linking these to the Auteur(s philosoph$ andB backgroundB influences.
Case Studies
Alfred Hitchcock
6itchcock grew up in Condon and has explained in interviews how he developed a fear of institutions;
there are a number of antidotes he reveals about his relationship with his father; his father introducing
him to law and order; and his strict 5atholic upbringing.
6itchcock has often been considered the master of suspense# man$ of his films including a male
protagonist who is thrown into a criminal underworld which he must battle to avoid a ma7or disaster. 6is
use of the moving camera# sound and music as characters# tight framing and claustrophobic
environments# stark lighting# tense editing se=uences and the Facguffin have all helped to create his
worlds of suspense. 6owever# his oeuvre is not this limited# he has created a number of other films
centred on the idea of ;aranoia 0/ebecca# Vertigo1 and the ;roto,4lasher film# 0sycho.
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11
Useful Resources on Hitchcock
%ilms 8 Kope# &orth b$ &orthwest# ;s$cho# Kebecca# 'ertigo# 4trangers on a ;lane# Kear
+indow# .lackmail.
.ooks 8 6itchcock: A /efinitive 4tud$ b$ %rancois Truffaut
6itchcock on 6itchcock
Alfred 6itchcock 0Fasters of 5inema 4eries1 b$ .ill <rohn
Alfred 6itchcock: A Cife in /arkness and Cight b$ ;atrick Fc@illigan
'iki +alden 8 Thursda$ &ovember 19# 3"11