Attack of the NON-auteurs

[Lex M]

I'm as big a fan of the auteur theory as anyone, and like most film geeks, I'm all about the director and judging their films within the context of their bodies of work. And as with most movie message boards, here we only seem to talk about the BIG NAME directors, both good and bad.

But what about the REAL hacks? I don't mean "HACK" as in "bad director," which is how most film geeks (mis)use the term. No, a hack is NOT a Simon West or Schumacher or Harlin, all of whom have trademark signifiers and thematics, even if you don't personally like them. I mean hacks in the old sense -- workmanlike pros who are essentially hired guns, skipping from movie to movie, even genre to genre, with little personal flair, but a degree of competence. Contrary to our love of the auteur theory, this isn't always a bad thing. So here are some good "hack"/workmanlike directors who almost never get mentioned but deserve some props.

JOHN BADHAM -- How does one go from BINGO LONGO to SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER to DRACULA to WARGAMES to BLUE THUNDER (ok, maybe those two...) to SHORT CIRCUIT STAKEOUT to BIRD ON A WIRE to....etc, etc. His each film may not have been ripped from his own tormented psyche, but Badham is an excellent craftsman of popular entertainment with sharp narrative sensibilities and a way with actors.

TED KOTCHEFF -- FIRST BLOOD, NORTH DALLAS FORTY, SPLIT IMAGE, WEEKEND AT BERNIE's -- Like Badham, little thematic consistency, but actually a master of widescreen cinematography and use of natural elements. Another guy whose name is nearly unrecognizable, but this Canadian director, in his prime, was a guy who could always be counted on to deliver a polished, non-flashy movie in multiple genres.

JEANNOT SZWARC-- Saw him listed as director on last night's THE PRACTICE finale, and couldn't believe he was still working. But JAWS 2, SOMEWHERE IN TIME, and ENIGMA (with Martin Sheen) were strong efforts from this TV-trained vet.

JONATHAN KAPLAN -- Like his peer Jonathan Demme, a Roger Corman protege whose filmography is all over the map but always well-made -- OVER THE EDGE, HEART LIKE A WHEEL, IMMEDIATE FAMILY, UNLAWFUL ENTRY. Anyone who gives me Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale in a Thai prison where they're still allowed to romp around in cute outfits is OK in my book.

JOSEPH RUBEN -- THE STEPFATHER. GORP. GOOD SON. MONEY TRAIN. You get the picture.

STEVE CARVER -- Tons of crappy but awesome 70s B movie/karate movies, but the highlight to me is BULLETPROOF with a blonde Gary Busey soulfully playing sax on the beach in between bouts of ass-kicking. Kind of the Poor Man's Robert Clouse.

JOHN GUILLERMAN -- 70s disaster movie hack -- TOWERING INFERO -- who also did my personal guiltiest pleasure of all time, 1976 KING KONG, which is more beautifully shot and scored than anyone gives it credit for.

IRVIN KIRSCHNER -- Yes, more recognizable because of EMPIRE..., but actually an interesting filmmography chock-full of many strong sequels to other people's movies, as well as the occasional EYES OF LAURA MARS and UP THE SANDBOX.

Be back with more later.

[Marq]

Beauty of a topic right here.

I once considered writing a paper on "non-auteur thoery" (or something similarly named, but equal in concept) for a film class as a contrast to everyone else's auteur theory works, but I was (am) clearly not smart enough to develop my own sets of guidelines and explain them all with enough specification to merit the effort. Looking back I should have both asked Lex's help on this and simply referred to the classic elements of auteur theory while saying "does not apply" to each of them.

One interesting case is:
BRUCE ROBINSON -- who through his first 2 films developed a very recognizable style and set of themes and tone with WITHNAL & I and HOW TO GET AHEAD IN ADVERTISING, but them threw it all away with his "American" debut that was impossible to connect with his previous work - JENNIFER 8. Alas, he was never to work as a director again, leaving nothing but confusion about how his career should be headed.

A more typical example:
JIM MCBRIDE -- No film connects to the other as he went from the interesting film-noir of THE BIG EASY to nothings like GREAT BALLS OF FIRE! and THE INFORMANT and countless random TV director jobs (The Wonder Years... Six Feet Under) and prior to that did a pointless American remake of BREATHLESS.

[Lex M]

Originally Posted by Marq

...and prior to that did a pointless American remake of BREATHLESS.

Pointless? Maybe, but not entirely without merit, at least in my opinion. From what little I know about McBride, he was something of an experimental/avant garde filmmaker prior to BREATHLESS, which I think does a decent job of presenting its two shallow leads against a backdrop of hazy, vaccuous Los Angeles. Again, it's not entirely successful, but I think he had something in mind beyond a more accessible remake of Godard's classic for dim-witted American audiences. And in his use of American junk-culture signifiers -- Jerry Lee Lewis, Silver Surfer comics, Gere's insane '50s greaser/flash performance -- I think the film DOES in some ways connect to the sexy, rock n roll Americana of GREAT BALLS OF FIRE and even BIG EASY, with which it shares a sexiness and funkiness that suggested McBride might have gone on to be a more interesting feature filmmaker.

[georgep]

TED POST- Veteran TV director who took a quiet success with the small Clint Eastwood western Hang 'em High and flopped off that diving board into infamous remembrance as a fill-in in the second films of the Planet of the Apes (Beneath the POTA) and Dirty Harry (Magnum Force) film franchises. Also dubiously connected with the early 'mainstream' sex comedy Harrad Experiment, Post's style is paint-by-numbers and overt to the point of blatant in his depiction of characters--subtlety and character development that respects the audience's intelligence are nowhere to be found in his films. IMHO, Post took two of the greatest first films in American motion picture franchise history and directed their sequels down to the lowest common denominator.

LUIS MANDOKI- Small date-movie director who went from White Palaceto Born Yesterday through When a Man Loves a Woman and Message in a Bottle, right up to Angel Eyes. His films have no message and aren't remarkable for much more than having three cute moments maximum, yet Mandoki is scheduled to shoot FOUR films this year alone (NONE of which you have probably heard of)!

DON TAYLOR- If you have seen the interview with Lloyd Kaufman on the limited edition of The Final Countdown (the final theatrical release Taylor directed), you know what a sad ending this once-bright young actor/director had to his career. Kaufman termed him a "burnout." Taylor himself, after encouraging returns from such second films in the franchise as Damien: Omen II and the best POTA Sequel, Escape From the Planet of the Apes, said that he just "inherited" great talent. Like Post, workmanlike direction yielded modest results, but Taylor was a much more hands-off director. Directed a string of completely obscure TV movies after 1980 until he retired for good in 1988 (and died 10 years later). Taylor took over Omen II from...

MIKE HODGES- director of the factory and military scenes in Damien, Hodges rocketed to celebrity in his home of England by directing the 1971 cult hit Get Carter. Best known to American audiences as the man behind the camera on Flash Gordon (and, to a lesser extent, Michael Crichton's The Terminal Man), Hodges has basically been in the Carter groove for the last 30 years. He takes on some gangster projects but not much else, as his resume has been rather sparse since 1980. Well, hey, we can always say he brought Queen to the big screen.

[Marq]

Well I must admit I still haven't actually seen the Breathless remake, so I can't truthfully admit to its pointlessness (damn my assumptions!) and unconnectedness to the rest of his work. But I still say connecting The Big Easy and Great Balls of Fire is a stretch - but I suppose we'll never know where his true talent (which I do believe he showed in The Big Easy and but the sounds of it perhaps was hinted at in Breathless) could have been focussed.

[Lex M]

Awesome selections, george. In fact, I'm now realizing what a subcategory exists just workmanlike directors of "Part 2s" -- Ted Post, Jeannot Szwarc, Irvin Kirschner, Don Taylor, Rick Rosenthal, Steve Miner, etc.

If I can beg to differ mildly on TED POST though; MAGNUM FORCE probably IS directed much more flatly than its predecessor. But I don't think its characterizations are simplistic as you contend; Also, the screenplay is by none other than the dueling heavy hitter combo of Michael Cimino and John Milius, with the emphasis on the Milius. And while yes, it does contradict many of the things that made Harry Harry in the original, and has been accused of being a retraction of the ealier film's ideals, whether that's for better or worse, I think that should be pinned more on Milius/Cimino than Post himself.

[georgep]

Originally Posted by Lex M

MAGNUM FORCE probably IS directed much more flatly than its predecessor. But I don't think its characterizations are simplistic as you contend; Also, the screenplay is by none other than the dueling heavy hitter combo of Michael Cimino and John Milius, with the emphasis on the Milius. And while yes, it does contradict many of the things that made Harry Harry in the original, and has been accused of being a retraction of the ealier film's ideals, whether that's for better or worse, I think that should be pinned more on Milius/Cimino than Post himself.

Actually, my beef isn't with Post's work so much on Magnum Force as it was on the POTA sequel. There are moments in Magnum Force that are superior to the original, actually. But on Escape From the Planet of the Apes, while it was the producers that rejected some great scripts, it was Post whose camera angles were standard and uninteresting and his pacing that turned what should have been a breakout sequel into a highly disappointing second installment with moments dangerously close to laughable.

I added Mike Hodges just now, and I'm thinking about our friend, the late J. Lee Thompson too, were it not for his brilliant resume of Gregory Peck films in the 1960s. Those later POTA and Charles Bronson films Thompson helmed I don't think many people would use in their demo reels.

[Lex M]

Originally Posted by georgep

I added Mike Hodges just now, and I'm thinking about our friend J. Lee Thompson too, were it not for his brilliant resume with his Gregory Peck films in the 1960s,

Trust me, J. Lee was my first choice when I started this thread, but I actually think his work on CAPE FEAR and GUNS OF NAVARONE alone should put him in the "auteur" category. Yes, he did end up doing some unusually sordid B pictures late in his career -- THE PASSAGE, anyone? HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME? CABO BLANCO? But strangely, even his late era Cannon fodder like 10 TO MIDNIGHT, KINJITE, MURPHY'S LAW, DEATH WISH 4 is easily idenitify as his own, thanks to his trademark push-ins on Bronson, sparse compositions and production design, really gratutious and unpleasant bloodshed, and copious amounts of truly and amusingly unnecessary nudity that looked like it was arranged just to give J. Lee a personal thrill. Dubious as some of those "achievements" may be, I can actually pick out a J. Lee Thompson film quite easily, and again, I think the quality of his Peck movies goes along way toward excusing and even enjoying some of his more "workmanlike" product in the 70s and 80s.

[Jerm]

Well, this thread isn't really about any particular DVD, and since it's really about filmmakers, I am going to go ahead and move this to Film Discussion.

[Monterey Jack]

Wow, no mention of Peter Hyams yet? The very definition of a workmanlike, journeyman genre specialist, skipping blithely from one unrelated action/sci-fi/horror picture to the next. There are entertaining films studded throughout his filmography (Outland, Capricorn One, Timecop, The Relic), as well as his fair share of stinkburgers (End Of Days, The Musketeer). He even has his own sequel film, the not-bad 2010. The only thing that mildly distinguishes him from the others listed in this thread is his penchant for doubling up as his own cinematographer (long before Steven Soderbergh made this "cool").

I'd also have to list Roger Donaldson. A very kinetic, assured visual stylist who hopscotches from period films (The Bounty) to action movies (The Getaway) to sci-fi/horror hybrids (Species) to disaster flicks (Dante's Peak) to historical dramas (Thirteen Days) to technothrillers (The Recruit), leaving nary a personal thematic idea behind in his wake. I've frequently enjoyed movies of his, yet I hardly ever think of one as "A Roger Donaldson Film".

[j.handsome]

I've got to throw James Foley into the mix here....

While not as prolific as some of the others mentioned already he has been able to make a couple of landmark (in my opinion anyway...) films in the midst of an otherwise very ordinary career.

Landmark (in my opinion anyway...)

Glengarry Glen Ross- I know that you can make the argument that "it's a Mamet script... just turn the camera on and let the actors fly." Hmmm... have you seen The Edge?

At Close Range- Surely the most underrated film of the 80's. Walken has never matched this level of charisma, taking the film away from Mr. Penn.
And besides... Tracey Walter's in it.

After Dark My Sweet- Okay. Not really a landmark... but it's worth a drive-by...

Less Than Landmark

Who's That Girl- ...

The Chamber- John Grisham sucks. I'm sorry. But it's true. Okay. I'm not sorry. (but it's still true)

Fear- Hey look! Marky Mark can act! Well... sort of.

The Corruptor- See above.

[Lex M]

j. handsome...

Wow, can't believe someone else views AT CLOSE RANGE as THE most underrated film of its era. I think it tops even GLENGARRY, and that it's Penn's and maybe even Walken's all-time best. Great mood, great atmosphere, music, and cinematography -- I actually rank this among my 20 or 30 favorite films of all time, and it's a shame it continues to toil in obscurity.

For that reason alone, I give James Foley a pass and treat him with kid gloves. GLENGARRY and AFTER DARK... are also very, very good, and even the more popcorn-y recent CONFIDENCE shows signs of the Foley spark. Like you say, hardly an "auteur," though I DO see a recurring visual palette in his films, even the poppier CORRUPTOR and FEAR.

In fact, I always compare him favorably to Steven Soderberg, who has this reputation as a genius auteur, yet who almost NEVER has any recurring thematic elements, and I'd be hardpressed to say what goes on in Soderberg's tortured psyche. He's not like a Scorsese, Ferrara, Schrader, Lee, or Stone, where every blood, sweat, and tear is captured on film. The only thing common to Soderberg's films is a recurring look and his playing with time, but emotionally the films are always a tad remote. In that regard, I don't think he's any more an "auteur" than someone like Foley.

Monterey Jack...

Peter Hyams I ALMOST consider an auteur, if only because his look is so patented, and because he often writes and shoots his own films, most of which fall squarely in the B-level conspiracy/potboiler genre. Granted, his thematic obsessions aren't as obvious as his contemporaries like Walter Hill or John Carpenter or John Milius, but he's a strong stylist who cranks out workmanlike Bs with a decent amount of panache.

To Roger Donaldson, I'd also add his nearly indistinguishable fellow Roger -- Roger Spottiswoode, who's done everything from BEST OF TIMES to TERROR TRAIN to SIXTH DAY to STOP OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT to TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by j.handsome

"it's a Mamet script... just turn the camera on and let the actors fly." Hmmm... have you seen The Edge?

What are you impying, j.handsome? The Edge is an excellent film.

And as much of a huge Soderbergh fan I am, I must grudgingly admit he somewhat belongs in this thread. Out Of Sight, The Limey, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Ocean's 11, Solaris...nothing connecting these films whatsoever except his Tarantino-esque jumpy narratives and trademark cinematography tricks. At least Soderbergh has a pretty consistent visual look to each of his films...

Howzabout Stephen Herek? Critters, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adenture, Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead, The Three Musketeers ('93 version), Mr. Holland's Opus, 101 Dalmatians ('96 version), Life Or Something Like It...pretty schitzophrenic filmography.

[j.handsome]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

What are you impying, j.handsome? The Edge is an excellent film.

Sorry... guess I was a little vague. Not a big fan of "Jaws with Claws". No offense...

[Lex M]

HAROLD BECKER

Like James Foley, a mostly serious director who still alternates between the gripping and the mundane. Started out with the excellent one-two punch of the Joseph Wambaugh adaptations THE ONION FIELD and THE BLACK MARBLE, then did TAPS, then...

VISION QUEST
THE BOOST
SEA OF LOVE
MALICE
CITY HALL
MERCURY RISING
DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE

[georgep]

VINCENT McEVEETY- This director bounced between forgettable Disney live-action films and series TV his whole career. If you ever remember being so bored by a movie or TV show on a Saturday afternoon that you give up channel-surfing and finally decide to do something HEALTHY for yourself, chances are this director drove you to it. No personal style, unless you can always tell when a director is shooting JUST what the producers and the studio want him to. Subsequently, this non-acclaimed director of treacle like Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, $1,000,000 Duck, The Castaway Cowboy, Superdad, and Gus took even his own chances with series like Star Trek and The Fugitive and made them so dull as to put you off TV for the rest of the day (at least).

Fortunately, his son Stephen rebelled and went on to produce slightly more substantial, flavorful films like Braveheart, What Women Want, We Were Soldiers and The Passion of the Christ. (Yes, anything Stephen McEveety puts his money into, Mel Gibson will be there.)

[Monterey Jack]

Ron Underwood. Tremors, Heart & Souls, Mighty Joe Young ('98 version), some movie with Geena Davis and Michael Keaton I can't recall right now...

Oh, and how could I forget Ron Howard?!? Probably the only director on this thread to helm a Best Picture winner (the atrocious A Beautiful Mind), his work is always craftsmanly, but in the most vanilla, benign, button-pushing way possible (unless he's trying to "stretch", then his work turns ugly and sadistic). Night Shift, Splash, Gung Ho, Willow, Parenthood, Backdraft, Far & Away, The Paper, Apollo 13 (his one masterpiece), Ransom, EdTV, The Missing...aside from a vague, overriding obsession with families, not a thing connecting any of these movies.

[hiroic]

I think Richard Donner deserves to be in this category. He does solid action dramas, but I don't think he has any distinctive narrative theme or style.

Also, would Joe Johnson (Rocketeer, Honey I Shrunk The Kids, JPIII, Hildalgo) fit this category? To me, he seems like a second rate Spielberg wannabe, as opposed to Zemeckis who is a first rate Spielberg wannabe. Is this a style that would qualify him as an auteur, or does he lack distinction?

[Lex M]

Originally Posted by hiroic

I think Richard Donner deserves to be in this category. He does solid action dramas, but I don't think he has any distinctive narrative theme or style.

Richard Donner and Joe Johnson likely qualify, albeit on the more A-list side of the equation than, say, Harold Becker, John Badham, Ron Underwood, or Ted Kotcheff.

In fact, there are MANY A-list directors who helm huge movies, often very GOOD huge movies, though I'd be hard-pressed to find much linking their films thematically beyond a polished studio sheen. Anything Barry Levinson has done outside of his Baltimore pictures qualifies, Ron Howard and Rob Reiner qualify, and even the great Sydney Pollack and arguably Zemeckis himself fall under this category.

[Monterey Jack]

Brett Ratner. Money Talks, Rush Hour 1 & 2, Family Man, Red Dragon, After The Sunset, X-Men 3...?

[Monterey Jack]

-Gregory Hoblit.

Primal Fear was great, but that was more due to the excellent screenplay and Edward Norton's star-making performance. Everything since then have been competent-but-bland, middlebrow studio thrillers, always released sometime in the spring to mild box office success only to be completely forgotten by the time it hits DVD. Fallen, Frequency, Hart's War, Fracture...

[Pirate]

I might add Marc Forster to the list. I’ve enjoyed most of his films and consider them to be technically astute with solid narratives, but I can’t say I’ve seen anything that particularly links his films together or noticed any visuals stamps. And, at least with Stranger than Fiction, it felt more like Forster was channeling Spike Jonze/Michel Gondry. It’ll be interesting to see if Bond 22 looks like a good imitation of Martin Campbell.

As an aside, has anyone ever heard a solid argument against the auteur theory?

[Monterey Jack]

Forster's a great choice. His next movie is the Oscar-baity The Kite Runner, and then a James Bond flick?

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

As an aside, has anyone ever heard a solid argument against the auteur theory?

Hmm? As far as I'm concerned I'd be more interested in hearing a solid argument for it. Granted, it depends on how literally you take it, but to consider the director the sole "author" of a film is complete hogwash if you ask me.

Film, more so than any other artistic medium, is a collaborative artform. And sure, the director has a HUGE impact on the finished picture, or there'd be no such thing as director trademarks or even the auteur theory. But to consider any director the sole author of a film? Bah. The only time that could possibly apply is for some experimental film where the director truly was the only person involved in every single creative decision.

KM

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

Film, more so than any other artistic medium, is a collaborative artform. And sure, the director has a HUGE impact on the finished picture, or there'd be no such thing as director trademarks or even the auteur theory. But to consider any director the sole author of a film? Bah. The only time that could possibly apply is for some experimental film where the director truly was the only person involved in every single creative decision.

I've never believed that a movie's success or failure lies entirely in the hands of it's director. The best directors get that way by working with the best behind-the-scenes collaborators time and again.

[Pirate]

I guess it really depends on how you interpret the law of the theory. I don’t consider the theory to be a dismissal of those who collaborated on the film—and I believe the theory leaves room for more than one author—but more specifically states that, in the best case scenario, the director’s vision is the final word. Take Lucas for example. If it’s weren’t for the model makers, concept artists, set dressers, etc., there’d be no Star Wars. However, those collaborators take inspiration form Lucas’ original concept and have to "OK" it with him before it ever sees celluloid. Therefore, in my estimation, Lucas is the author.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Take Lucas for example. If it’s weren’t for the model makers, concept artists, set dressers, etc., there’d be no Star Wars. However, those collaborators take inspiration form Lucas’ original concept and have to "OK" it with him before it ever sees celluloid. Therefore, in my estimation, Lucas is the author.

Sure, he's the person whose vision those working on Star Wars are trying to achieve, but the whole point behind the auteur theory is to strive towards a point where the director is the sole author of the film.

And while I don't think Truffaut and company necesarrily intended to dismiss others who worked on films where the director isn't the sole author, that is in effect what has happened when media has embraced the whole auteur theory.

There are plenty of examples where film critics and others are lauding a director's vision when in fact they had nothing to do with it beyond thinking someone elses idea was a good one and going ahead with it.

My personal favourite, if only because the commentary track in which it's pointed out is hilarious, is in The Limey. Soderbergh was applauded for leaving the camera on the sidewalk when Wilson goes back into the warehouse for the beginning of his killing spree. But that was in fact how Lem Dobbs wrote it, and he was very specific about it as well, and Soderbergh simply shot it the way it was written.

Now, granted, lots of things about The Limey are very Soderberghian, but my point is simply that because of the relatively widespread acceptance of the auteur theory, Lem Dobb's contributions were very much minimized and dismissed.

And that's bullshit.

KM

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

And that's bullshit.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I think that has more to do with ignorant critics and elitist interpretations of the theory. That said, I would take Soderbergh’s honoring of the original material to be part of what makes Soderbergh the director he is, which in turn relates back to the theory.

I need to read Truffaut’s essay again, but I don’t recall it implying that the director "works alone." I find it hard to argue that films by David Lynch, Terry Gilliam and even Michael Bay are not fully products of their vision. Of course, there are some discrepancies, but if the filmmaker has the final word (and final cut), that to me is authorship.

While I do agree with auteur theory for the most part, I don’t believe that all aspects of cinema are bound to it. I think the idea is something to strive for. I’d rather have a director with a specific vision rather than a point-and-shoot filmmaker, but, of course, that most often is not the case. So, perhaps the auteur theory only really applies to those who are clear auteurs. Is that not, in a sense, what this thread is about?

[David St. Dubly]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

I've never believed that a movie's success or failure lies entirely in the hands of it's director. The best directors get that way by working with the best behind-the-scenes collaborators time and again.

Then why did you write this?

If it's Days Of Heaven Malick, I may like it. If it's The Thin Red Line Malick, I probably won't.

[Pirate]

How does that contradict his original statement? There are plenty of directors who can be considered auteurs, but that doesn’t mean you’ll like all of their films. And have we even established that Monty is a supporter of the theory?

[David St. Dubly]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

How does that contradict his original statement? There are plenty of directors who can be considered auteurs, but that doesn’t mean you’ll like all of their films.

Because by his logic, and specifically the way he phrased it, the films are "Malicky," as if Malick alone was the "owner" of the film and solely responsible for its upsides or downsides.

I think you should have your name changed to Devil'sAdvocateHunter.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by David St. Dubly

Because by his logic, and specifically the way he phrased it, the films are "Malicky," as if Malick alone was the "owner" of the film and solely responsible for its upsides or downsides.

I think your view of his logic may be a bit narrow. I’ve only liked one of Tarantino’s films, but I would describe them all as "Tarantinoy," which does imply negativity.

But, you’re right, I’ll let Monty address your question.

Originally Posted by David St. Dubly

I think you should have your name changed to Devil'sAdvocateHunter.

I still regret picking piratehunter.

[Monterey Jack]

While there are plenty of talented people who helped Terrence Malick create his films, they're definitely supporting Malick's very singular "vision". I would never refer to a movie as "Brett Ratner-y" or "Roger Donaldson-y", because those filmmakers have no identifiable style to their films. Get it?

Plus, no matter how huch input the cinematographer, set designer, composer, ect. have in the creating of a film, it ultimately boils down to the director and the film editior shaping the raw footage into the final version, so it really does boil down to the director's final say.

[David St. Dubly]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

While there are plenty of talented people who helped Terrence Malick create his films, they're definitely supporting Malick's very singular "vision". I would never refer to a movie as "Brett Ratner-y" or "Roger Donaldson-y", because those filmmakers have no identifiable style to their films. Get it?

Plus, no matter how huch input the cinematographer, set designer, composer, ect. have in the creating of a film, it ultimately boils down to the director and the film editior shaping the raw footage into the final version, so it really does boil down to the director's final say.

Then how can you differentiate between an auteur and a non-auteur if, in your view, it only matters what the director and editor come up with? This is completely bogus anyway (as is the majority of directors thought of as auteurs), because it doesn't account for what shapes films and has since cinema became marketable, and that is the producer's and studio's interference/input. A film that has any sort of mid-level or above budget has too many people watching over it to be considered a personal vision, and thought of as autonomous.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

While there are plenty of talented people who helped Terrence Malick create his films, they're definitely supporting Malick's very singular "vision". I would never refer to a movie as "Brett Ratner-y" or "Roger Donaldson-y", because those filmmakers have no identifiable style to their films. Get it?

Sure, I get it, but that's not what auteur theory is all about. It's about striving for a point where the director can be the sole author of a film. I don't agree with this goal. And I don't agree we're anywhere close to being there.

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I wholeheartedly agree, but I think that has more to do with ignorant critics and elitist interpretations of the theory.

While I agree about the ignorant critics part, I don't think it's very elitist to interpret it that way. That is the original idea of auterism. And again, I don't think Truffaut meant to discredit those who collaborate with the director. I think his idea of the auteur was more a... utopian ideal to try to strive towards, more than something that can realistically be achieved.

And because it's not something that can be achieved, how can there be true auteurs? It's only if we redefine the term to suit the realities of filmmaking that anyone can achieve auteur status.

To a certain extent this redefenition has already taken place but the problem is that while it takes less to be considered an auteur than I think Truffaut originally intended, the contributions by other collaborators are not recognized as much as they deserve to be.

And while that in itself I suppose doesn't answer the question whether there are auteurs or not, it does highlight a fundamental problem I have with the whole auteur theory outside of the point that I don't think there are auteurs in the sense Truffaut meant.

KM

[Pirate]

I’ve got rebuttals and a bunch of new thoughts on this, but work is hell today. Didn’t want you to think I had left the conversation. Good discussion, folks.

[Pirate]

Sorry, this is kinda long.


After doing some reading—I tried to re-read Truffaut and Bazin’s original essays but the translations I found online were a bit spotty—I’ve come to a few new conclusions about "the auteur theory," as well as my take on it. I think this first important thing to do when deciding whether or not you are a supporter of this theory of film criticism and analyzation is to understand when it was championed by Truffaut (since most often he is the targeted offender). When Truffaut wrote his essay, "A Certain Trend in the French Cinema," he wasn’t casually writing about film, he was attacking the post-war system that he thought was threatening the art form. The harshness of his writings on this subject, and thus the harshness of the theory’s critics, can be summed up by something my grandmother once said to me when I was young. I asked her why the Old Testament was so mean and God so wrathful. She responded that it was "big box office." What she meant was that, at the time, God needed to make a big, loud, scary impression to get his/her/its point across. I think, in a sense, that’s what Truffaut was doing with his essay. I think it was intended to be a slap in the face to the current French and American cinema rather than simply an extension of the theory; but it does have merits and when dissected and looked at as an evolving idea, I think the theory is very important to understanding cinema.

I think the real theory is misunderstood, because it is looked at as some sort of sentimental separator within the art form. I’ve heard some of you say that the theory lessens the importance of key players such as script writers, cinematographers, etc. However, I see it as more of a point-of-view on film rather than something that has a practical and elitist application. To further understand this, I think rather than focusing on Truffaut’s essay, one should read Andrew Sarris’s essay, "Notes on the Auteur Theory," that takes a further look at the theory's actual meaning. I think his thoughts on the subject are less vague than Truffaut’s—at least by American standards. As Sarris points out, the word "auteur" is problematic in its translation from French to English. The word "author" is too literary in the U.S. and seems to confuse the idea behind the theory.

Sarris’s views on the subject are basically how I’ve always interpreted the auteur theory: It’s not meant to dismiss the other collaborators, but, when applying the theory, your primary focus is on the director and his/her unique cinematic signature. I believe you can take the theory a step further and apply it to the writers, producers and cinematographers. But, the goal of an aspiring auteur should be the clear representation of their vision. Granted, within the studio system, that is not always possible, but I don’t think that deters the theory’s practice. Even a tampered with Terry Gilliam film will still ultimately be a Terry Gilliam film. I think the best way to understand the theory, at least as I understand it, would be this hypothetical exercise:

A book of The Tortoise and the Hare is given to three directors: Ron Howard, David Lynch and Tim Burton.

Ron Howard’s filmed version of the story is a fairly straight-forward, but very technically competent work. The essence and soul of the story are there, but Howard’s vision could have just as easily been replicated by Marc Forster or Richard Donner. There is no visual signature per se, but that doesn’t mean the film is without gorgeous cinematography and a soaring musical score.


David Lynch’s version will obviously look and feel very different than Howard’s. Lynch will most likely wish to take an alternate path with the story’s trajectory, and perhaps make his audience work a little harder to reach conclusion. Lynch will bring in many of his regular collaborators to work on the project (even though he seems to do most of it on his own these days). So, when Lynch’s version is complete, we will have a distinctly Lynch-ian version of The Tortoise and the Hare. Not only can we judge the film as a singular vision, we will also be able to view it as a piece of Lynch’s larger body of work.


Tim Burton’s version (expect to see Johnny Depp in a bunny suit) will be similar to Lynch’s in that the tools that Burton uses to craft his films will all be employed to create his vision of these racing woodland creatures. This is not to say that it will look identical to his other films (think Batman vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), but his visual stamp, signature, fingerprints, or whatever you want to call it, will be present and visible.

This is where the auteur theory comes in. You look at these three films and grade them individually. But, with Lynch and Burton’s work, you can view them with an alternate set of guidelines and perspectives and within a distinct body of work. With Howard’s version—although still an excellent film—there is no indication other than his credit, and perhaps his choice of composer, that would connect to his other films in a significant way. So, in essence, the auteur theory is not a dismissal of collaborators, or a dismissal of visually-ambiguous filmmakers, or a pedestal on which to place specific directors. The theory is simply an alternate point-of-view. Truffaut said that "there are no bad films, only bad directors." Putting aside the simplicity of the quote, we all know that even the best and most distinctive directors have made bad films, but for those considered auteurs, a bad film is specific to their body of work. So, in the end, I think the theory really means that no one can make a bad Hitchcock film but Hitchcock.

What do you think?

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

What do you think?

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

That is also how I think the auteur theory should be applied. I sort of said as much, only perhaps not as clearly, with my "redefenition" comment above.

The problem lies, and we're straying a little bit from the topic now, with how the theory is generally viewed. Most people tend not to think of auteurs as you've specified it, but rather apply the strictest interpretation of the theory.

And it's that interpetation I find ridiculous and unfair to all filmmakers, including directors, who are not just the recipients of the praise but also the criticisms. Neither of which they deserve all of.

KM

[rixrex]

I'm not a big fan of the 'auter theory' mainly because it has given way to cheese-ball directors of Hollywood productions who now must have their name immediately pop-up before the title credits as part of "A Film By ....."

This is pure bull, as most of these characters couldn't put together any sort of decent film without the assistance from their cast and crew members who were responsible for 90% of the end result. I am not talking about directors such as Hitchcock, Ford, and the like, who are known to have had immense control over their productions.

This is part of the reason why you'll see 'second-level' directors have superb films intermingled with garbage. The superb films also had superb writing, production, acting, editing, etc, that made them stand out.

If you want to see a real director's film, a real auter film, take a look at a film done on a tiny budget with a crew of six and a cast of unknowns, all of whom the director had to truly direct. A real hands-on director of this type of production can take mediocre material and make it better than it is.

The Hollywood film directors who I think of as auters all have lesser films that are still so good that they transcend the material, and are better than many of the best films of the Hollywood hacks.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by rixrex

I am not talking about directors such as Hitchcock, Ford, and the like, who are known to have had immense control over their productions.

If you want to see a real director's film, a real auter film, take a look at a film done on a tiny budget with a crew of six and a cast of unknowns, all of whom the director had to truly direct. A real hands-on director of this type of production can take mediocre material and make it better than it is.

The Hollywood film directors who I think of as auters all have lesser films that are still so good that they transcend the material, and are better than many of the best films of the Hollywood hacks.

It doesn’t sound to me like you actually disagree with the theory.