Auteur theory
Auteur theory originated from France in the 1940s and is aimed at criticizing the current view of filmmakers about book authors and other significant figures in the artistic world. Before the development of the auteur theory, an early theorist of German origin, Walter Julius, expressed his regard for a director as the giver of the final product to the masses. Secondly, James Agee, in his evaluation of the film industry, argued that the best type of films a director can produce are those based on personal experience. In 1940s French film critics, Bazin and Leenhardt stated that it is through the directors that the world can see the aim and the purpose of a film. In their critic, they established that a director expresses his feeling and connection to the topic under the display. Describing them as auteurs, these two expressed their view that directors can add their vision by using editing tools, camerawork, staging, and lighting. Peter Wollen and Andrew Sarris played a crucial role in the development of this theory in the world outside of France. Through their articles, they developed different arguments and views regarding the auteur theory. This paper evaluates their opinions on this theory as well as illustrating the importance of their arguments to the film theory evolution.
Peter Wollen, in his evaluation of this theory, argues that the main characteristic of auteur films is the film structure itself. In his support of this argument, Wollen makes several analyses of the theory (Helm-Grovas 1). According to Wollen, this theory’s goal is to uncover the recondite motifs behind the presented superficial contrasts of treatment and subject. Wollen’s meaning in this first argument is that all the images reflected in a film are the direct representation of the imaging and visionary techniques of the director. The movement of characters and the different behaviors shown in a film reflects the director’s view on imaging. Motifs, as presented by the auteur, give the movie this distinct structure that differentiates it from other films. This implies that the imaging movements or repetitive occurrences are the exact representation of the director’s liking.
In support of his structural approach to film, Wollen argues that the earlier confusion existing as a result of viewing directors as metteurs en sce’ ne or viewing them as auteurs. Clarifying this development, Wollen argues that in differentiation between these two names, it is critical first to define the term film. According to him, films for auteurs refer to the construction of the film itself while in metteurs, it relates to the semantic definition rather than the expressionist or stylistic approach (Helm-Groves 2). By this argument, Wollen implies that exemplary directors are defined by their shifting relations, both in uniformity and in singularity.
In his evaluation of director Howard Hawks’ works, Wollen expresses his opinion that Hawks shows his tempo and visual styles in all his films. In his support of the structural nature of the auteur theory, Wollen argues that Hawks scaled down his stylistic approach to just two genres that can support his visual styles and tempo. Hawks’ work is primarily; adventure drama and crazy comedy that allows him to use the same stylistic devices. For instance, in critic of the films, Wollen notes that in all his movies, hawks employs protagonists belonging to professional affiliations, and who boast in their abilities. In his films, heroes are always fishermen, pilots, racing drivers, cattlemen, and hunters in gig game events. His main idea and phenomenon are based on heroism. Wollen views Hawks as understanding the concept of structure in films as required in the auteur theory. Contrary to the other directors, Hawks sees courage from a personal perspective, without associating it to the historical context. The other directors, like Boettlicher and Ford, view heroism as a social factor that must be correlated using norms in society. Again, Hawks presents his adventure films with the aspect of societies with unmarried people. By using these scenarios, Hawks implies that these are the type of things he observes and loves in his life. Women are seen as preying on men, even though they are not presented as a threat in the films. According to Wollen, this type of view of women and men as two different beings offers Hawks’ vision of films (Helm-Groves 2). The cause of this type of vision, as explained by Wollen, is his belief in an ultimate community comprising of men.
The structure of a film, according to Wollen, is defined by a network of statements that contradict and equally cross each other. According to him, these statements from a particular coherent vision within the film. For instance, while evaluating different films by a similar director, it is easier to identify and decipher a distinct structure within the film. This individual structure defines this specific author in the movie. Wollen notes that through Again, in analyzing his view of the structure in different movies, Wollen chooses to use Hawks. In his evaluation of Hawks’ work, he states that Hawk fancies in using repeated motifs as his core. For any careful viewer, Wollen notes, viewing decoding of the unconscious and unintended message, and meaning of a director is possible. This implies that through exposure to several films, anyone with a good understanding of the auteur theory can identify or differentiate a director from another (Helm-Groves 3). According to Wollen, auteur theory involves the process of tracing structures within a film contrary to the aspect of identifying the intended message of a film. Auteur theory defines a director as an explanatory model or device towards the structure of the film.
Sarris, a Polish scholar, has the idea that the auteur theory focuses on three principles that define it. Sarris establishes the presence of three critical aspects for directors. First, the technique defines a director’s specific techniques that identify their work. Secondly, he defines personal style as the ability to identify with a unique visual style that all the audience can identify as originating from you as a director (Sarris 561). Finally, inner meaning, as defined by Sarris, refers to the director’s intended purpose, that reaches the audience, or what the director wanted the viewers to comprehend.
Auteur theory, according to Sarris, is defined by the ability to hypothesize a bad director giving exemplary work or a good director doing poor work. This implies that through the auteur theory, the audience can identify the progress in directors or the elements expressing a director’s ability to replicate whatever they think to what viewers see (Sarris 563). Sarris says that the moves and looks in a film are a direct correlation to the thinking and feelings of a director. Through his article, Sarris evaluated how different workers think.
Most notably, Sarris evaluates the Wes Anderson movies and establishes the various techniques, intended meaning, and personal style of the director. Throughout the film, Sarri notes that the director uses the premise. The constant visual style is maintained in all his movies, which implies that this is a personal style. Again, Sarris notes that in films, the most critical premise is the intended meaning of a director (Sarris 564). Explaining this, Sarris notes that without this premise, it is almost impossible for the audience to see any reflection of the ideas of these directors.
Auteur theory, according to Sarris, is a criticism mode that involves identifying the directors as the art rather than the patterns presented in the films. Sarris, in his article, views a director as a powerful force of a movie. Sarris stated that if a director lacked the stated principles, it was only fair for them to be cast out (Sarris 564). According to the Sarris, a director must show consistency in the use of motifs that identify him. The movement and general look of a film must be related to the director’s thinking.
Importance
Sarris’ argument that there are three premises in the evaluation of a film has played a considerable role in the development of the Auteur theory. First, through his argument, today, directors can be identified by their consistency in personality. This implies that directors can be determined by their recurrent style that signifies them. As per the requirement so of the auteur theory, it is critical for directors to be identified as creative forces in building films (Lackey 543). Film analysis is simplified through the auteur theory because through it; critics have a guideline to follow.
Wollen’s analysis of the auteur theory implies that it has helped in the simplification of the evaluation process of films. The timeless criteria, content, and complexity of a film, as used before this theory to critic a film, are no longer significant as they were. This implies that during the evaluation of films, the productivity of a specific work is used to critic it rather than the traditional form of critic that relied heavily on the exhaustive interpretation of films (Lackey 543). Today, evaluation involves checking the overall structure of a movie to identify the productivity of a given work.
The theory has had numerous benefits on the evolution of film theory. Directors in the modern film world, have been granted immense appreciation, contrary to the old criteria that focused on appreciating other players in the film industry. All the stakeholders in the film industry, cinematographers, writers, editors, supervisors, and assistants work towards achieving a desirable output. While all these other players play a crucial role in giving the intended view, it is the director’s message, personality, and untended message that gets the audience finally gets to see. In film analysis, the auteur theory enables critics to use specific aspects. The theory gives critics guidelines in listing directors as auteurs or regular directors. For instance, today, great directors are defined by their ability to make films that show their personal styles, technique, and the intended information. According to these criteria, directors can be gauged as having performed exemplarily of partially. Using Wollen’s argument, the structure of a film can be used to predict its quality, and similarly, the auteur of a specific film can be identified.