There's no such thing as an auteur film. The theory is flawed in that movie-making is collaborative by necessity.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

It's an interesting theory - that like the writer is the author of a novel, the
director is the author of a film. But as Brian says, there is no such thing as
an "auteur film". The theory discusses who is the author of a film, not the
technology.

I also don't believe filmmakers today are following tighter guidelines than
the "auteurs" of the 1950's and 60's. The films coming from the studio system
might seem very similar, but the films coming from the independents are
strikingly different from each other.

Availability of equipment has nothing to do with the theory that the director,
not the writer, is the author of a film.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

There's a semi-famous parable about an argument between a Director and a Writer when the Writer throws a blank sheet of paper at the Director and says, "Direct this!"

The never-ending question from young aspiring Directors is, "What camera should I buy?" But all too often, those individuals really have little to no interest in learning how to be a qualified "Cameraman"... nor do they have any intent or interest in all of the other elements necessary to make a movie, like sound or costume design or set decoration or construction or transportation or scheduling or special effects or visual effects or makeup or hair styling or catering or security or anything else that it takes to make a movie.

Even most other artists, like painters or authors or sculptors require assistance from others at one point or another to get their "art" finished. Even the top film Directors not only require, but depend upon, the creative and technical skills of others to bring this idea of the "Director's Vision" to fruition. Anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of a true "auteur" Director who does it all by him/herself. Technology has very little to do with it.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

The term "auteur film" I understand does not exist. I was using it mainly to describe directors understood to be auteurs. e.g. Hitchcock, jean-luc godard, Tim burton.

You say movie making is a collaborative project, which I agree. A director could not do his job without a crew. Surely though a certain type of director, one who seeks complete control over decisions such as camera placement, lenght of shot, pace of editing is considered to be the author. They are using the crew to turn there vision onto screen as precisely as possible. (e.g. Hitchcock)

I understand your statement about the writer. Some would say though that it is the directors decisions that shape film and connect with the audience in a certain way. Fundamental visual elements as camera placement, blocking, lighting, and scene length, rather than plot line, convey the message of the film. Surely the director should then be considered the "author" of the film.

One interesting point was raised in a book which related to the equipment/crew available to a filmmaker. Quote -
Curiously, the nearest thing to autuer exists at the beginning level , when you can do it all yourself.
It goes on to say how when people move on to larger films it is lost as tasks have to be divided between people so it is a collaborative project and that the individual vision of one person becomes blurred.

Rob - UK

quote:

---

Originally posted by robmanu7
You say movie making is a collaborative project, which I agree. A director could not do his job without a crew. Surely though a certain type of director, one who seeks complete control over decisions such as camera placement, lenght of shot, pace of editing is considered to be the author.

---

Exactly what the auteur theory says - that the director
is the author of the film. I do not subscribe to that theory.
I have just never hear the term "auteur film".

quote:

---

Originally posted by robmanu7
One interesting point was raised in a book which related to the equipment/crew available to a filmmaker. Quote -
Curiously, the nearest thing to autuer exists at the beginning level , when you can do it all yourself.
It goes on to say how when people move on to larger films it is lost as tasks have to be divided between people so it is a collaborative project and that the individual vision of one person becomes blurred.

---

Which is exactly why I do not subscribe to the theory that
the director is the author of a film as the writer is the author
of a novel. The collaboration blurs the lines of who is the
"author" of a film.

I'm not sure I really agree with the theory either. It seems to wrongly discount the role of everyone else. Also the editor has a very important role on the pacing and way the audience interupt the film. I think it is only apply-able to people who write, direct and edit there own films - normally on a very small budget.

Rob - UK

So if you narrow the understand of "auteur" to someone working on
a very small budget who write, direct and edit their own films the I
might agree that the development of technology has helped create
more "auteurs".

However, even before the current technology, many people wrote,
directed and edited their own low budget films. Using 16mm and
super 8. So I think it isn't so much the technology as the people
making movies. I don't think filmmakers are now following tighter
guidelines.

Well, apparently there is an entire Wikipedia article on Auteur Theory. It seems to be specifically linked to François Truffaut and that wave. The term actually also exists in the EU law, where it refers to the director, for the purposes of the sole authorship of a motion picture.

Like many other creative endeavours, film as a collaborative process has, by necessity, plenty of authors. However, in vast majority of cases, it is clear that the director's creative contribution represents the largest portion in the final product. The whole concept of 'autheur' film rests solidly on that premise, and not without reason. It is not the screenwriter who guides the creative contributions of others; it isn't the production designer; nor the cinematographer. All these people contribute extremely valuable creative ideas to the film, but it is the director who normally makes creative choices, conveys them to his cast and crew, guides them in a specific direction and gets them to contribute their most creative and relevant ideas to the project.

So, if we consider that the theory does apply (and I seem to be in the minority here with such opinion), the question is, whether the new affordability of technology created more auteurs than before. I would say, not by much. Traditional definition of the 'auteur' implies a person who has such strong individual creative ideas and personality that (s)he is able to impart those ideas onto others and steer them into a very specific direction, so that his(her) personal stamp is easily identifiable and unambiguous. The cheap technology has made filmmaking possible for practically everyone. Those with little skills and experience embarking on the filmmaking journey only because it is now possible (while earlier it simply wasn't) will rarely possess the 'auteur' qualities that early in their career. Being forced to wear several hats on a film project (writer/director/cinematographer/editor, etc) does NOT necessarily result in an easily recognisable personal stamp on such work. One could argue that Robert Rodriguez, who continues to do many things himself, even though he doesn't have to, doesn't come across that much as an 'auteur'. Personally, I can much more easily recognise personal stamp on films of some directors who only directed the film (and did nothing else) than on films of Rodriguez.

Short answer: I don't think so.

There I had forgotten about that EU law. The EU recognise the director as the author legally. What is the case in the US?

Rob - UK

Fortunately here in the US there is no such law.

The Writers Guild has tried fighting the "A film by" credit.
But so far the US government has stayed out of it.

A Director should do just that: direct. That means that in much the same way the Ringmaster in a Circus "directs" the show or the Conductor of an orchestra "directs" or GUIDES the musicians, the Film Director can only have something to do when there are creative and technical people to bring something to the project.

Yes, the Director is responsible for guiding the creative and technical choices throughout a project to ensure that everyone is making the "same movie" toward a common goal. (For example, the DP shouldn't be making lighting and lens choices befitting a horror movie when the Production Designer is making choices befitting a slapstick children's film). It's the job of the Director to make sure everyone is making the same movie.

Does that mean the Director is and should be considered the sole author of a movie? In some cases, a Director will have specific ideas about what a set or costume should look like and set his "minions" out to bring them to reality. But in MOST cases, the Director reads the script which was written by someone else, then derives some ideas from it... just like the other creative people on the project.... and those people (DP, Production Designer, Composer, etc) bring their ideas to the Director who really does say "Yes" or "No." I suppose if there was some example of a movie where the Director absolutely positively created EVERY idea from costumes to every musical note and then had others simply DO those, then maybe that Director could possibly be considered an "auteur." But again, we'd be hard-pressed for find any movie that comes close to that.

The only type of movie that even remotely is coming to mind are the Wallace and Grommit animated films where the Director really is the creator and CAN truly do everything on his own.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I believe the technology being cheap and available means that we will see more Writer/Directors and that's as close to an Auteur as you can get, thus more auteurs.

This might mean some great flicks but it will probably also mean a ton of really, really bad flicks.

RJSchwarz

quote:

---

The Writers Guild has tried fighting the "A film by" credit.
But so far the US government has stayed out of it.

---

And I believe there is a valid reason for it.

Since Brian mentioned it earlier (...the same way (...) the Conductor of an orchestra "directs" or GUIDES the musicians,...), I'll use the conductor/orchestra metaphor to argue the point.

NY Philharmonic is arguably one of the top ten orchestras in the world. It has accumulated talent and musicianship that is as flexible and diverse as it is homogenous. Still, very few people know the names Glen Dicterow, Sheryl Staples, Cynthia Phelps, Carter Brey (some of the principal musicians of the NY Phil). More importantly, the greatness of the orchestra provides perfect example how the orchestral performance is practically ALWAYS a conductor's performance. The current artistic director is the home-grown son of two NY Phil musicians, Alan Gilbert. Orchestra sounds powerfully exuberant under his fairly clear gesture. However, when Nikolaus Harnoncourt arrives from Vienna, the performances are decidedly European in sound, neatly folded and lined up, pure, clean and efficient. However, the most amazing transformation happens when Valery Gergiev storms onto the podium: if you didn't know the musicians, you'd swear you are listening to St. Petersburg Philharmonic. Suddenly, the orchestra was bursting at seams, full of massive, healthy tone. It was extremely difficult to reconcile the genuine Russian sound with the looks of Phil Myers (French horn), or Amanda Davidson (young trombonist).

The point of this story is, even for something as abstract as music, a proper conductor can (and should) very clearly define the performance and make it uniquely his. With narrative film, this is even more the case. A proper director SHOULD clearly own all of what is in the film, from on-screen performances, to visuals, to sounds and music. This in no way takes away the creative and artistic contributions of participants (much like it doesn't in an orchestra).

Another thought on the subject of 'auteurs'.

Decades ago, I had friends studying directing at the College for Dramatic Arts in Belgrade (Serbia). On a few occasions, I went to the screenings of their class exercises. These were 3rd year students (it was a 4-year programme), directing major. The assignment was the same for everyone (7 of them): shoot six pages of script on Super 16 in colour, with sound. They all worked with the same crew (DP, production designer, sound, etc -- all fellow students) and equipment. Each chose his own cast, though (from among acting major students). It was extremely surprising to see the vast differences between the end results of these guys. Same text, same team, different actors and directors. Films were edited by the students themselves (actual film splicing; no Final Cut Pro back then).

Based on that experience, I am convinced that the director is truly an author of a film, if he does his job even remotely correctly.