Attack of the NON-auteurs

[rixrex]

Well, actually I do disagree with it significantly, not so much as it had been presented originally by Andre Bazin, but as applied currently by modern fashion to exalt a film's director with disregard to the the significant contributions of many others, especially those of the acting talent, writers, producers, and editors.

Bazin championed such directors as Hitchcock, Ford and Welles, and in his writing he actually categorized directors at a variety of levels of significance. Of course, these aforementioned directors were pantheon directors and understandably so as they all did have reputations of being tough taskmasters with ultimate control over nearly all aspects of their films. Bazin then listed lesser directors in a variety of sub-categories, and the unintentional effect of this was to elevate all directors as auters.

Bazin was actually saying that these lesser directors could not truly be considered auters in the manner of the pantheon directors, but the mere fact of listing them in his body of work elevated them to the status of being a film auter, and it has now been taken to such an extreme that it is standard practice to entitle all productions as "A Film By ...", regardless of the fact that thousands were instrumental in the film's production, and to constantly remind the public in commercial ads who directed the film, and what he or she did previously that was so great.

So now Hollywood is awash, and has been for three decades, with all sorts of novices who feel that they'll never be successful if they cannot direct a film. Whereas what's really needed are writers of caliber, producers who can sense good material, actors and actresses who are allowed to express their talent, directors who can channel this talent on the set into something meaningful, good camera crews that allow the director to not worry about the shot, and last and definitely not least, editors who can save everybody's a$$ when they turn crapola into something decent.

All these other folks noted here are of as much value as any gee-whiz director who thinks he or she's the next Lucas or Spielberg, yet are really not even good enough to be the next Jean Yarbrough or William Beaudine.

[Pirate]

So you don’t disagree with the original theory of auterism, but rather the modern practice of it? I think most of us would agree. On the other hand, I don’t think the tacked on "a film by…" is really a problem outside of cineaste circles. And most of us can tell the difference between a "Film by Brett Ratner" and a "Martin Scorsese Picture" or a "Spike Lee Joint."

But I would argue that these problems are as old as studios themselves.

[rixrex]

You are right in your interpretation of my opinions.

One point that I take issue with is that the "problems are as old as the studios themselves", as I don't believe the modern treatment afforded the director is something that was common prior to Bazin's auter theory compositions.

In the days prior to this, say prior to the 1970s, in order for a director to get his name listed before the film title, that director really had to be a BIG, BIG shot, a proven moneymaker, and a recognized talent whose name would bring in moviegoers as much as any actor or actress. Very few acheived this recognition, plus they were not recognized in the form of "A Film By ...", but by rather less proprietory methods.

The producers, typically the studio bosses, were the real control masters then, and the only reason they'd allow a director to get such recognition is when they thought it meant a greater box office. Producers were the actual makers of the film when considering the entire project, and a more honest depiction of a studio film production is, as was common then, to say "such and such studio presents..." because in fact all the cast and crew on the film are studio employees or contractees.

I am not a fan of the currect use of the auter theory because it tends to heighten a director's contribution while ignoring by it's nature the relative importance of others involved, even in cases where the director's work was lousy, but the film was still decent thanks to such things as superb cinematograpy or outstanding editing.

I once saw, while in grad school, a film instructor (who was also an accomplished film editor) take a rough cut of a dramatic student film, which was pretty lousy, and turn it into a pretty decent comedy with only the film stock on hand. It was an eye-opening experience.

[Monterey Jack]

Wolfgang Petersen.

From Das Boot to The Neverending Story to In The Line Of Fire to Air Force One to Troy to Poseidon...