Auteur Theory
A reassessment from the view of a filmmaker.
The auteur theory is the most widely taught film theory in the academic world. As a framework of film criticism, the auteur theory is the easiest for new students to access, understand, and apply to their studies. And why not? The idea that a director will have a singular voice that carries throughout their work makes sense. Filmmakers are storytellers, and it makes sense that they tell stories about themes and subjects that they connect with. Filmmakers are visual creatures, so it makes sense that they will use specific shot types and camera movements that they like across their body of work.
The auteur theory was born in the work of Alexandre Astruc and his article The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Camera-Stylo (Astruc, 1948). La Camera Stylo was a rallying call for independent cinema made by a new wave of young, interesting filmmakers. Astruc believed that the critics of the day were ignoring the works of Bresson, Welles, and Renoir in favour of the ‘everyday films which, year in and year out, show their tired, conventional faces to the world.’ Through La Camera Stylo, Astruc was one of the first film critics to solidify and argue that cinema was becoming not only a form of expression but a language in and of itself. He went as far as to say: “Cinema will gradually break free from the tyranny of what is visual, from the image for image sake, from the immediate and concrete demands of the narrative, to become a means of writing just as flexible and subtle as written language.” It is an interesting, if not somewhat pretentious idea.
However, at the time, Astruc had yet to become a filmmaker. He, like his new-wave peers, was a film critic. Along with Andre Bazin, Truffaut, Godard, and Rohmer, Astruc loved writing about films but had little experience with the mechanics of making one. This lack of understanding is most evident for me in Jean-Luc Godard’s A Bout De Soufflé (1960), a film often regarded as one of the great pieces of cinematic art, which daringly breaks all the rules of cinema as established by Hollywood. It’s a nice idea, but I think it is far more likely that Godard had bitten off more than he could chew when making A Bout de Soufflé and didn’t know what he was doing whilst making it. That’s not the harsh criticism that many may perceive it to be. As much as A Bout de Soufflé is not my cup of tea, denying its effect and influence on filmmaking would be futile. Besides, I made many of the same mistakes when making my first feature film, Little Pieces (2015).
Astruc’s writing laid the foundation for the auteur theory, but his view that the director would essentially do away with the writer and editor to create films in the same way an author shows an ignorance of the practicalities of filmmaking. However, as with any theory that contains good ideas, his fellow film critics would push its ideas forward in their magazine, Cahiers Du Cinema.
Founded in 1951 by Andre Bazin, Jacques Doniol-Valcroze, and Joseph-Marie Lo Duca, Cahier Du Cinema is arguably one of the best periodicals on the art of cinema in circulation. Serving as Bazin’s outlet in its early years, Cahiers promoted an interest in the quality of realism in cinema. This was Bazin’s core belief, that film should show truth and reality. He advocated for long takes and as little editing as possible in films to capture this realism. Generally uninterested in the works of American cinema, Bazin focused on the canonised French and Italian filmmakers of the era. This did not sit well with the younger critics writing for Cahiers and Bazin soon found that Godard, Truffaut, and Rohmer were writing articles that directly contradicted his views.
This came to a head in a 1954 article in which Francois Truffaut attacked la qualite Francaise, ‘the French quality,’ and denounced many of the critically acclaimed French films of the time. Truffaut argued that these films were boring, unimaginative, and oversimplified adaptations of literary works. It was this article that established politique des auteurs (policy of authors) and cemented the start of the auteur theory. Through politique des auteurs, the critics of Cahiers reappraised the works of many American filmmakers including Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks. They argued that the director of a film is the most important voice involved in its creation. The film’s author, if you will.
However, it wasn’t until 1962 that the auteur theory became a framework for cinematic analysis. American film critic Andrew Sarris wrote the essay ‘Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962,” in which he developed the foundations of auteur theory and applied it to American directors of the time.
In this article on the Apple Park Film Club, I want to critique the modern-day use of auteur theory and what it has become. I want to discuss whether or not the auteur theory is overused (I believe it is) and the effect it has had on the latest generation of filmmakers. I hope to explore the wider flaws of auteur theory and, in later articles, present case study examples of filmmakers I firmly believe deserve the title. Before we can do all this, we must establish exactly what auteur theory is.
While researching this article, I came across a singular broad definition of the auteur theory: that a filmmaker’s identity and style are clear within their bodies of work at both a visual and thematic level. However, as one dove deeper into the body of work on the auteur theory (and what I looked at was in no way exhaustive), it becomes apparent that the specifics of this definition are at best flexible, and at worst, inconsistent. If we start with Indie Film Hustle, we can see that their definition of an auteur is “a reflection of the director’s artistic vision” and that “a movie directed by a given filmmaker will have recognisable, recurring themes and visual cues that inform the audience who the director is and shows a consistent artistic identity throughout that director’s filmography.”
In his article for Backstage, Jason Hellerman argues that an auteur must be three things:
Instantly recognisable - do they have a visual style that you can recognise as uniquely theirs?
Transparent - directors have to be willing to share their personal views on the world across their works.
Consistent - no matter the story or genre, directors have hallmarks that will carry over through all their films such as actors, cinematographers, composers, and ideas.
This list is far more specific than the one on Indie Film Hustle. It gives us more to work with when selecting who we can classify as an auteur.
Studio Binder also has its definition of an auteur. Similar to Backstage, Studio Binder breaks their definition down into three specific ideas:
Basic competency - they argue that an auteur director must be at least competent at making films.
Signature style - a director must have recurrent features and characteristics over their body of work.
Interior meaning - a director's innermost soul must come through in the movie.
Aside from the competency rule, these definitions are a bit loose. It’s easy to distort them to fit the remit of almost any well-known filmmaker.
The final source I used for this article was Jourdan Aldrege’s What Does Auteur Theory Mean for Modern Filmmakers, published on Soundstripe. Like the other sources, Aldrege defines the auteur but lacks depth and substance. Instead, Aldrege says that the auteur theory is “a way to describe the distinctive approach of certain film directors who have so much control of a film that they can’t help but make it about them.” This feels like a somewhat reductive statement that doesn’t take the idea seriously, a point further highlighted when Aldrege argues that TikTok is one of the current homes of modern auteurs.
These varying definitions of the auteur (even if they bear some similarities) highlight my first issue with the auteur theory: its malleable nature. Whilst the central idea of the auteur theory is that a filmmaker has to have a singular, distinct voice runs throughout all of these sources, the further adjustments suggest that no one wants to define what an auteur is with any real specificity. I understand that film is art and so putting too specific a definition runs counter to its nature, but a real theory doesn’t allow one to pick and choose with such variety.
I would argue that Studio Binder’s definition of basic competency also falls outside the requirements of auteurist cinema. In the article, they use it as a humorous jab at Tommy Wiseau, director of The Room (2003), but they still set it as a rule. I disagree with this notion. The first case study I want to discuss in a follow-up article would fall outside of Studio Binder’s rule of basic competency.
To argue that a director has to be at least a good filmmaker ignores the fact that directors who worked outside of mainstream cinema are also those most likely to fill the other requirements laid out. Without studio interference, filmmakers are more likely to be able to develop a signature style and transparent interior meanings to their work. I understand that the original politique des auteurs was an analysis of Hollywood filmmakers' work, and applied to the 50s and 60s when Hollywood was breaking free of the studio system. Any discussion of modern filmmaking has to look beyond this limitation. I’ve yet to see more of Tommy Wiseau’s work (though, I am looking forward to seeing Big Shark), but despite his apparent lack of competency, the man had complete control over The Room.
Studio Binder later argues that writer-directors can’t be auteurs, using Tarantino as an example. They argue that the strictest definition of an auteur is a director imbuing a visual style onto a written text. Writer-directors don’t fit this definition because the script will start with the visual elements already applied. Using this logic they argue that Scorsese and Spielberg are great auteurs, but filmmakers such as Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and P.T. Anderson are not auteurs.
I don’t agree with this argument. I know I’m making the case for a more rigid framework to apply auteur theory. I also made the point above that the original Politique was written during the death of the Hollywood studio system and was applied directly to Hollywood filmmakers. It was an antagonistic article that deliberately ignored European cinema of the time. The Hollywood studio system made little room for the idea of a writer-director and, interestingly enough, those who were working at that time are included in Cahiers’ journalists’ opinions as auteur. The most notable example of this would be Orson Welles, who Astruc particularly admired and mentioned in La Camera Stylo (as well as the writer-director being the natural endpoint of the idea).
So, yes, I do want to argue for a more rigid approach to auteur theory, but I’ll say again that as cinema and our experiences expand, so too must the theory. There is a difference between having a theory with no set approach and a variety of criteria dependent upon the publication you read, and a theory not adapting beyond its initial seed idea.
The malleable nature of the modern auteur theory leads me to my first real issue. In my experience teaching filmmaking, and including the auteur theory within that, far too many people treat the theory to talk about a ‘filmmaker I like,’ and not a framework for criticism. I remember reading a paper arguing Joss Whedon was an auteur when at this point he had only directed two films: Avengers Assemble and Much Ado About Nothing.
Had the paper argued that Whedon was an auteur because he had a singular voice that came through despite working in TV, I’d have been impressed. Sadly, the young man in question was a big fan of the Marvel cinematic universe, so the bulk of the argument was a gushing appraisal of Avengers Assemble.
There are filmmakers we all love and admire, but this can’t be the basis upon which we approach auteur analysis. There are many filmmakers I admire, but wouldn’t consider auteurs. There are other filmmakers whose work I am less interested in but can make a case for their work making them an auteur. People may not like to hear it, but I would argue that Michael Bay is an auteur. He has a distinctly Michael Bay visual aesthetic that runs through his film, ‘Bayhem’ as it’s known. He is arguably directly responsible for the chaotic, one cut every two seconds rules, seen in most popular Hollywood cinema these days. Finally, almost all his films thematically revolve around the American military-industrial complex.
This leads nicely into my next criticism of the auteur theory, or the people who rely so heavily on it as a framework. If we hope to use a theory for critical analysis, it has to apply to all filmmakers. Using Michael as an example of an auteur is a clear example of how a filmmaker often considered to be of low quality, can still fit the framework.
My next criticism of the auteur theory is that far too many people use it as a means of snobbery within film criticism. This is not as evident as those who use the auteur theory to establish ‘filmmaker I like,’ but it still exists. Some film critics use the auteur theory to dismiss credibility from those filmmakers they deem lesser. They refuse to acknowledge the auteurist credentials of filmmakers who lurk in genre cinema.
Genre cinema is, in my opinion, the place where auteurist cinema truly shines through. Yes, P.T. Anderson can put his mark on a drama, but drama as a genre is fairly loose-fitting. Genre cinema has rules, tropes, codes, conventions, all obstacles to the auteur who fights to put their stamp on the work.
This concern once again ties into Studio Binder’s comment about basic competence. When discussing famous auteurs in their article they talk about Spielberg, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock, all well-known and classic directors. They don’t discuss John Carpenter or Denis Villeneuve. This does fit with their view that writer-directors can’t be auteurs (a point I have already disagreed with), but it feels unnecessarily reductionist to do so. It’s not lost on me that later in their article, Studio Binder points out that one of the main arguments against auteur theory is its reductionist nature.
My biggest complaint about the auteur theory is its trivialisation of the collaborative nature of filmmaking and the effect this has had on young and emerging filmmakers.
As an independent filmmaker in the UK, I’m well aware of the cycles of funding from public bodies such as the BFI. Every year, around February, applications open for the BFI Short Film Fund, which awards money to high-quality short film ideas that fit their criteria. It’s a great scheme, designed to encourage the development of new and emerging talent. Despite my issues with the BFI as a source of funding (I was once told not to bother applying because the BFI didn’t fund the types of film I want to make), any funding for new and emerging talent is valuable.
Like any funding body, the BFI has criteria they expect you to meet before they will supply funding. One of these criteria is that a director and producer team must apply, not director-producers. This is a sensible move designed to ensure that directors don’t overwork themselves by trying to wear too many hats. I’ve acted as director-producer and writer-director-producer on many of my films; I know how exhausting it can be. The unfortunate side effect of this criterion is that it reveals how little many young and emerging filmmakers know about the producer role.
The producer role is significantly less sexy than the director role. Everyone wants to direct, even those who don’t think we don’t when we start (I originally wanted to be a screenwriter). So, it’s understandable why education centres focus on directing skills, it attracts more people. It also means that the people trapped in producing aren’t learning the role accurately. By extension, neither are the directors.
It never fails to amaze me how few directors understand that producing is both a creative role and logistical. The producer is often the start of the creative product and the end. They develop the idea and commission a writer (or buy a script), and they often have the final cut on the project. The director may be the creative visionary behind the bulk of a film, but without the creative input of a producer, they would be swinging in the wind.
So it comes as no surprise that every February, as the funding for the short film fund opens, Twitter and other social media platforms are flooded with writer-directors desperately seeking a producer to attach to their project. The DMs I receive are always a variant of “I’m a writer-director who wants to apply to the BFI short film fund. I’ve written a script, attached some actors, and my DoP mate from uni is attached, I just need you to fill out the forms!”
It is quite exhausting to receive this type of message year after year. Now, I merely post every year that I’m not interested in applying for the BFI short film fund and tell people not to apply. This is because my discussions with past applicants led me to understand that many have no interest in collaborating with a producer. Instead, they want someone to fill out the forms, meet the BFI’s requirements, and then plan everything so that they can fuck off and play with their gadgets, and hang out with actors.
My discussions with applicants also led me to conclude that this falls at the feet of the proliferation of the auteur theory. I don’t say this lightly. My discussions always involved me asking about collaboration. Would I get to collaborate on the idea? Would I be developing the script? Where do I fall in the creative scheme of things? Sometimes I would be met with blank stares or stares filled with bemusement. One told me that producers didn’t ‘do creative stuff’ and that I hadn’t been to school. I haven’t been to film school, but I have produced short films and two feature films. The common thread that ran through each discussion was that the director of the short saw themselves as the voice behind the project, in charge of the creative ship and I just needed to shut up and do the paperwork. That, and one of the applicants straight up told me he was ‘an auteur’ in his first email. That’s some balls for a twenty-two-year-old graduate who only has student films under his belt.
It’s easy to laugh at these issues, but the truth is that they can be damaging. The UK independent film scene is essentially dead. Don’t take my word for it, there are publicly available reports that will tell you this. Independent film producers are dropping out of the industry like flies. There’s no money in it for those of us who work in the independent sector. Most of us work out of passion and desire, the dream of telling stories. That passion and desire can only last so long in the face of these fools who are convinced that the director is god and producers need to scurry off and do paperwork while they have all the fun. We will lose what precious few producers we have left, and then these precious auteurs will have no one to help them get their films made.
A discussion of the wider issues in the UK film industry can be saved for another article; I don’t want to get too far away from the auteur theory. But it is worth reflecting on here due to the impact that, I believe, the auteur theory has had on the next generation of filmmakers. It’s an easy theoretical framework to teach and/or learn about, and being director-focused means it fits in with the director-focus film education centres. The question is: is it worth teaching if it ultimately damages the wider film industry?
Despite what I’ve said here, I’m not completely opposed to the auteur theory as a theoretical framework. It has its place in the canon of film studies just like all the others. I stand by my statement that the malleable nature of the auteur theory means that well-meaning students and cinephiles have been able to water it down into a ‘filmmaker I like’ approach. I think, if applied properly, the auteur theory can lead to an interesting discussion about a filmmaker’s body of work. My next article will solidify my framework for the auteur theory based on the consistent ideas presented through it. Then I will apply this framework to the work of relatively unknown genre filmmaker Michael J. Murphy to see if it stacks up.
Thank you for participating in the Apple Park Film Club. I would love to hear your opinions on the auteur theory and my stance on it.
References:
Britannic Article on Auteur Theory
Indie Film Hustle - What is an Auteur
Backstage - Auteur Theory: A Full Guide
Studio Binder - Auteur Theory: The Definitive Guide to the Best Auteur Directors
Soundstage - What Does Auteur Theory Mean for Modern Filmmakers?