Flynn, J (2004) MAKING 10 MONTHS: AN APPLICATION OF THE AUTEUR THEORY OF FILMMAKING. Submitted to the School of Interdisciplinary Studies (Western College Program) in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Bachelor of Philosophy Interdisciplinary Studies. Ohio: Miami University Oxford.
Words- 1045
Though this text is more than a decade old; but the reason I chose this article is that it’s been a while since we have seen any mainstream auteur filmmakers. Only a handful of auteur filmmakers were able to make in the film industry early 2000’s. And now it’s been more than a decade that Hollywood has produced any new ‘Auteurs’. This journal talks about the apparent positives and negative aspects of Auteur Theory in filmmaking.
The author uses various directors and other areas of art and also uses his personal experience of filmmaking for his thesis. In this journal, the author starts with the history of Auteur Theory even before it was termed ‘Auteur’, Alexandre Astruc described it as ‘creative force’ behind a film project. And later on, it was used by French theorist (François Truffaut) and was coined the term, “Auteur Theory”. As film making history continues, many critics and film industry objected to it, as it against ‘Tradition Quality’ and ‘genre’. For a brief period, Hollywood suspended the idea ‘that a film should be the director’s vision’. The journal progresses along with people who favour the theory and who oppose to it. Then he concludes his research with his practical work in directing the film as an Auteur and just using its principles.
It is an interesting source as the author is extensive with his research, and throughout the thesis, he explains the negative aspects of Auteur theory. Since its introduction in Hollywood, many critics have objected to it, as it singles out other collaborators, creators and technicians and only the director gets the credit. Critics such as Andrew Sarris describes the auteur as a prominent figure with a personal view, influence and a visual style. He furthermore, describes the auteur directors as ‘distinguishable personality’ with an ‘interior meaning’. As the film culture and Hollywood progressed with the Auteur Theory, others were seeing it as a tool to compare with non-auteur directors.
Flynn, in his thesis, believes that new directors are using Auteurship as a tool for marketing purposes of getting audiences. Instead of using it for artistic vision, it seems they are selling their films like a product. To which, I agree, while doing my research its seems like the reviews supported Christopher Nolan movies (The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar) and Kathryn Bigelow used her brand to promote her non-successful film as well (e.g. K-19: The Widowmaker). Another thing is directors who were known to make genre films are considered as auteurs as well, which is confusing.
Specific points made by Flynn, I agree, such as, writer-directors should be known as auteurs for example; Quentin Tarantino wrote and directed all his films. Many edited and acted or even compose in their own films as well such as Woody Allen and Coen Brothers. These examples support the theory and make movies as a personal artistic vision of the director. The idea of directors taking charge of various sectors of the film project helps them to visualize their perspective come alive, and could determine the creative and narrative structure of it.
I seem to notice an underlying negative tone that Flynn has for auteurs, regarding certain technical aspects of the movie. For example ‘comics’, which is literary art and now it is extensively shown on films. But in my opinion, comics shown in films or T.V shows have a different narrative and visual style. For example, let’s take Batman, since my childhood, I have admired the character Bob Kane created, but as time progressed, so did the character. As I grew reading comics, I finally came across The Animated Batman series, Tim Burton version and even the gritty version of Frank Miller. As we started to enter the 21st century, the character progressed, and finally, I watched ‘The Dark Knight’. Before Christopher Nolan’s movie, I assumed Bob Kane’s character ‘Batman/Bruce Wayne’ is a playboy, billionaire, fights crime and wins in the end. But ‘the Dark Knight has changed all perceptions of it; the movie shows limitations, endurance and sacrifice of Batman and Bruce Wayne. Though this is a superhero film, the story becomes realistic, the character becomes more relatable, and this would not have been possible for a director with a personal vision, story structure and narrative style shown in this film. Now, after ‘The Dark Knight’, I have come across many superhero films; but nothing compares to Nolan’s auteurist vision.
Flynn also makes a comparison of the ‘Auteur Theory’ in other art forms such as theatre, architecture according to him, ‘writer and actor are a dominant force when it comes to performance’. I beg to differ, even in theatre the director has to have a vision for performance to be alive, whether it’s done with lights, sound, or which music to play in the background. These technical aspects contribute to the mood, tone and the atmosphere of the play. A theatre play without a director will be, people on a stage talking to each other, presenting no meaning.
Some of the arguments presented in this journal seem weak, such as; the director is solely responsible for the creation and the success of a movie which appears not to be true. As an audience, we have witnessed in the film the importance of soundtrack, how it affects the mood, the significance of it in a particular scene. For example, most of Christopher Nolan’s movie, he has a thrilling, action-paced soundtrack composed solely by Hans Zimmer. So by Fynn’s reasoning, does the director still gets the full credit, or does the composer gets the credit?
So despite all the controversies or, the negative reviews that have come across on Auteur theory, I still believe it is still a valuable tool to help spread a unique version of storytelling to the rest of the world as I’ve learned in my directing class that director is the storyteller. It is up to him/her on how they would like to present it. The only thing I could see a similarity between an auteur and other auteur artists is that they have a message they want to share. And it is up to them of how they would like to share it. Especially in delicate times like these, visionary stories are the way towards a brighter future.
Film Blog 