‘With close reference to two or three films either studied on the course

or of your own choice, assess the strengths and weaknesses of

auteurism as a critical approach. Please confirm the film titles and

directors with the tutor before you begin to write your essay.’

The question as to what makes a director an author of his films opposed to

a mere technician has been consistently debated throughout the history of

Cinema when it was first used as a medium for artistic creativity. The politique

des auteurs emerged from France during the 1950’s as an ‘…opposition not

only to established French film criticism with its support for a quality cinema of

serious social themes, but also to the untheorised committed political criticism

of the left, which ignored the contribution of individuals to the process of film

production ’ (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 240). Also, ‘…the idea of the mise-en-

scene (the staging of the real world for the camera) was central…to make the

distinction between those directors who simply directed (who had mastered

the language of cinema) and those who were true auteurs, in the sense that

they put forward a coherent world-view in their films and manifested a

uniquely individual style’ (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 240).

The idea of an artist as someone who ‘…resisted the forces of the market

in the interest of artistic autonomy in opposition to commercial, socially

conformist art’ (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 235), has been argued since the

Renaissance. With this in mind, Scorsese can seemingly qualify as an author

of his films if being considered one means the ‘…expression of certain

intentions carried out by an individual person, who was an artist by virtue of

his or her struggle against the industrial system of production to attain control
of that process of production in order to express his or her personal concerns’

(Cook & Bernink, 1999: 235).

A prominent feature in Scorsese’s films is his variations in speed. Slo-

motion shots are accurately used to capture a particular moment, highlighting

a certain emotion or detail in the shot. For example, in ‘Raging Bull’, there is

the scene where Jake first sets his eyes on Vickie in the nightclub,

emphasizing the intensity of Jake’s attraction to her. Scorsese also uses this

technique to great affect during the ‘Marriage’ scene in ‘Goodfella’. A similar

Result is achieved through his use of high-speed shots, giving a manic and

hectic perspective. The shot in ‘Raging Bull’ where Jake knocks down Sugar

Ray Robinson - who almost flies over the ropes - emphasizes the power and

velocity of the knockout blow. The emotional perspective achieved through

the slowing and quickening of pace, adds to the visual narrative, where

directors such as Guy Ritchie have taken heavily from.

Scorsese’s use of ‘Location shooting, long takes and intimate, shaky hand-

held camerawork characteristic of ciné-vérité complements the naturalistic

representation of a specific subculture to afford a ‘documentary’ picture…this

‘documentary’ representation is also stylistically heightened by a battery of

anti-realistic devices…jump cuts, slow-motion, ‘unmotivated’ camera

movement, and often intrusively annotative music’ (Cook & Bernink, 1999:

182).

The idea of ’documentary’ style realism is one of the most striking

signatures that Scorcese employs in his films; the attention to detail described

in his words as “the reality as I knew it.” Sarris’ theory that auteurs try ‘…to

put popular cinema on a level with art’ can help explain Scorsese’s merging of
‘realism’ with ‘finesse.’ This particular use of camera techniques and editing,

violent themes and provocative characters, married with the use of often raw

dialogue, gives the appearance of a documentary film-making which creates

an intimate and explicitly revealing atmosphere that strangely entices the

audience to be a voyeur of the world depicted. Scorsese’s portrayal of his

characters state of mind and feelings lies also in his understanding of his

actors needs – the choice of actors with similar cultural backgrounds as his

characters and the insistence of the actors use of improvisation, all add to

create scenes of uncanny truthfulness. Having mastered such a vast range of

techniques, Scorsese creates feelings of isolation, desire and most

prominently, anger in many of his films.

Violence has been given particular attention, even creating a sub-category

in its own right as being distinctly ‘Scorsese,’ influencing the work of directors

such as Quentin Tarantino. Here, we are propelled into the front seat of

brutal fights and murders, highlighting all the grisly detail to shock the

audience into submission. For example, in ‘Casino’ we are shown the brutal

killing of Tony as he is clubbed to death by a group of baseball-bat-wielding

mobsters. This is after he watches his brother beaten to death before his very

eyes. Or in ‘Goodfellas,’ when Tommy breaks his gun after smashing it

repeatedly against a Mafia bosses head, while Jimmy stamps on the helpless

victim. Due to Scosese’s obsessive attention to detail, this makes for rather

disturbing viewing, but is none the less memorable. It is as if drama has

moved on from the days of moving people with emotion through tragedy (e.g.

Sophocles), to moving people through the sensationalisation of the ‘explicit’.

The emotion felt whilst watching a tragedy has somehow transferred itself to
the shock effect of violence or abusive scenes (rape – ‘Irreversible’),

orchestrated on film in a frighteningly realistic way.

The use of often ‘shady’ characters leads onto the subject of Scorsese’s

fascination with the anti-hero. Upon reading through Scorsese’s filmography,

it is quite obvious he is obsessed with the idea of the anti-hero; from films

such as ‘Mean Streets’ to ‘The Passions of Christ.’ This could be because

it gives a different angle to the average protagonist or it could be that it ties in

with Scorsese’s view on what is ‘real,’ someone who is not necessarily good

or bad, but has elements of both. The moral ambiguity of the characters

depicted is a consistent theme for Scorsese, where the characters try to ‘do

the right thing,’ but are confronted with external forces or simply the limitations

of their own characters.

This should all identify Scorsese as a text book auteur yet there are many

who would only regard him as mere technician, an metteurs en scene.

In many people’s eyes, Alfred Hitchcock will always be classified as an

auteur. His innovation of camera and editing techniques during a time when

cinematic narrative was still primitive, added to his understanding of the

complexities of the human mind, rightfully carves himself a place in the history

books. Although one must acknowledge his massive influence on the film

industry, it must also be noted that he also happened to be in the right place

at the right time. The fact that not only cinema, but also the whole concept of

visual narrative was relatively infantile, it allowed Hitchcock to take advantage

of the basic techniques available at the time, and re-write the rule book .

Today that is not as likely to happen to such a degree. Cinema has had time

to evolve; there is much more competition, and most camera and editing
techniques have become common knowledge, making it much harder for

directors to stand out with visual style alone. Even if someone like Tim

Burton does create a distinctive visual style, there is still the question as to

how much that vision belongs to him opposed to the D.O.P., set director,

artistic director, etc. Then there are spectacular visual effects, like ‘bullet-time’

seen in the ‘Matrix’. Like any new visual technique employed liberally, can

just as quickly become a common gimmick .

‘…cinema only achieved the status of art cinema when a film or body of films

could be seen as the expression of certain intentions carried out by an

individual person, who was an artist by virtue of his struggle against the

industrial system of production to attain control of that process of production

in order to express his or her personal concerns.’ (Cook & Bernink, 1999:

235)

This would undeniably eject Alfred Hitchcock from his throne of the greatest

auteur. So if someone as revered as Hitchcock cannot be considered an

artist, how do we distinguish one in an industry that relies so heavily on the

industrial systems mode of production?

It is becoming more important as filmmakers to be able to distinguish their

own ideas and beliefs through the initial creative process, through the writing

process. Directors such as Pedro Almadóvar and Quentin Tarantino, have

made it their business not only to direct their films, but fundamentally, to write

them, creating a vision that is uniquely theirs, not just through utilizing

technically stylistic methods, but starting at the source, focusing on the quality

of the content rather than relying on aesthetics alone. We all have our own
unique outlook on life - as a writer and director of a film, this should make

itself relevant in his/her vision, automatically stamping his/her signature onto

the film. This is what I think is the most essential ingredient to being an

auteur; for one to be a true author of his films, should it not require that one be

the source of inspiration depicted?

This theory would inevitably categorize Hitchcock and Scorsese as

metteurs-en-scene. What has distinguished directors such as Hitchcock and

Scorsese from other filmmakers is a purely aesthetic quality. But it is

increasingly difficult to recognize a consistent visual style that differentiates

them from other directors, who subsequently incorporate these well-worn

visual techniques into their own films. When we take away the prestige of

historical context related to filmmakers in this cinematic pantheon and put

these films naked side by side, it then starts to become problematic. The only

true recognizable factor is that of a consistent theme – with Hitchcock it is the

psychological suspense thriller, Scorsese the often violent portrayal of the

anti-hero. The stylistic choices complement the content of their regular

themes, but if Hitchcock was to apply his techniques to, say, a romantic

comedy, it is unlikely to be as effective.

‘…there is nothing more common nowadays than an auteur. Auteur films

(which create their auteur) are rarer stuff’ (Chion, 1995: 3)

Auteur theory seems like a common theoretical dialectic that starts to fall

into a polemical rhetoric, a sign that the ground in which auteurism once stood

strong and proud is delineating into a chaotic quagmire of indistinct intellectual

ramblings. Nowadays, producers such as Don Simpson and Jerry

Bruckheimer have as much of a distinctive ’creative’ voice as the directors

that they employ, enough, at least, for the audience to recognize their stylistic

signature to attribute it to a Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer product.

But surely we don’t regard them as auteurs of the films they produce, just as

surely as we emit Tony Scott from the same distinguished club. Charlie

Kauffman has fast become as influential, if not more so, than the directors of

the screenplays he writes have. When it comes to a distinctive authorial voice,

Kauffman wields considerable clout. So where does this leave us in an

industry so full of self proclaimed egos? Where anyone in the film industry can

quite convincingly, and arguably quite rightly, stamp their creative voices so

prominently. The problem then points back to the hierarchy of the production

process. Auteurism really does become the politique des auteur, where what

is regarded as important in the creative process is no longer a matter of an

individualistic struggle against the system, but a struggle within it.

It seems that the original understanding in cinema production points back

to the socialistic model of cinema as essentially a collaboration. Any

‘distinctive’ voices, at its best, can only be considered marketing tools to

reacquaint the audience to a ‘similar’ product. Producers, directors,

screenwriters, D.O.P.’s, musical composers, etc., all drown one another’s

voices with their own, stamping their authority on the films they associate

themselves with – even director’s such as Tarrentino ‘presents’ films, as to

lend the weight of their own individual ‘tastes’ to the process.

Given that auteur theory is still young and progressing, it is difficult for me

to give a clear conclusion, as it is evident that this has become more of a

political debate rather than a basis for examination of a theoretical model. I

don’t believe that one can make such a judgement purely through observing

aesthetic style, and out of the 30 films he directed, Scorsese was only

involved in writing 7. But considering that both Hitchcock and Scorsese had

refrained from making ‘common’ films, adding an ingenuity (albeit, a technical

one) to cinema as a whole, this should at the very least be enough to

distinguish Hitchcock and Scorsese from the hoards of mass-producing

imitators. And that always helps at the box-office.

References
Cook, Pam and Bernink, Mieke (1999) The Cinema Book. London: BFI
Publishing

Chion, Michael (1995) David Lynch. Trans. Robert Julian, London: BFI
Publishing