Auteur Theory

[OurBovinePublic]

Do you think this film theory is still relevant or was ever relevant? What are the problems that discredit the theory the most? Or do you think it is still difficult to write off the theory completely?

Colm

[Kitty Whiskers]

What do YOU think?

[Steve Crook]

Do you think this film theory is still relevant or was ever relevant? What are the problems that discredit the theory the most? Or do you think it is still difficult to write off the theory completely?

Colm

Read Critcism of Auteur Theory and the things that references.

It's not at all difficult to write it off completely. It's nonsense. It always was nonsense. The difficulty is in getting some people to stop teaching it

Steve

P.S. It does also depend on what you mean by "Auteur Theory". When we've talked about it previously it seems that there are many different versions of what people think it is. But they're all nonsense

[OurBovinePublic]

Personally I agree that its non sense but I have to write an essay on why its difficult to write off lol. The reasons I have for it being non sense include:
films are a collabertive effort and not just made by one person.
the director receives the praise for being an auteur but often they haven't seen write the script.
Also sometimes the director may not have had the idea for a certain aspect of a film eg the shower scene in Psycho
Intentionality - did they actually mean to create what is being heralded as auteur?
technology can often play a part because a director can only create what technology allows eg James Cameron having to wait for technology to catch up before he could create Avatar
Some films have more than one director so who is the auteur?
Some films are great but the other films made by that director are not
The Hollywood Studio system restricted lots of great directors from creating the films they wanted to.
Directors are often foreced to adhere to the standards of film genres. Ie create a Western according to the standards which already exist for that genre.

Any others I should include?

[CaptainWaggett]

Read Critcism of Auteur Theory and the things that references.

It's not at all difficult to write it off completely. It's nonsense. It always was nonsense. The difficulty is in getting some people to stop teaching it

Steve

P.S. It does also depend on what you mean by "Auteur Theory". When we've talked about it previously it seems that there are many different versions of what people think it is. But they're all nonsense

There are certainly directors with a distinctive style and recurring subject matter who used the same writers and had the same regular troupe of actors. However, I doubt many film school teach Tom Walls (more's the pity )

[Steve Crook]

Personally I agree that its non sense but I have to write an essay on why its difficult to write off lol. The reasons I have for it being non sense include:
films are a collabertive effort and not just made by one person.
the director receives the praise for being an auteur but often they haven't seen write the script.
Also sometimes the director may not have had the idea for a certain aspect of a film eg the shower scene in Psycho
Intentionality - did they actually mean to create what is being heralded as auteur?
technology can often play a part because a director can only create what technology allows eg James Cameron having to wait for technology to catch up before he could create Avatar
Some films have more than one director so who is the auteur?
Some films are great but the other films made by that director are not
The Hollywood Studio system restricted lots of great directors from creating the films they wanted to.
Directors are often foreced to adhere to the standards of film genres. Ie create a Western according to the standards which already exist for that genre.

Any others I should include?

They're certainly the main reasons why I think it's nonsense.

Could you add that the difficulty in writing it off is due to the lecturers who are stuck in the past and still teach it?

Steve

[OurBovinePublic]

Thats basically how I would define it. The idea that a director imprints all their films with their own creative style and ideas and in that sense it is hard to argue with. The problem in my eyes is saying that it is just the director that is responsible for this

LOL not sure they would appreciate that. Any thoughts on how the theory progressed after the criticism it received? Like how did they advance it so that the criticism wasn't so daming?

[will.15]

It started with the French. Look up wikipedia for a pretty good explanation how the theory developed and the arguments for and against. I would say it is not nonsense for certain directors, but has been applied too broadly to encompass filmmalers who are not auteurs. A director can be good and not be an auteur and can be bad and be an auteur. Woody Allen, whatever you may think of him, is an auteur, as he writes and directs and the style and themes are always unmistakeably his. Tony Scott clearly isn't and Ridley Scott is someone widely respected and often embraced as an auteur, but a little harder to categorize. The Green Hornet was made by a director who has been acclaimed by some as an auteur, but admits on Hornet he was a hired hand with the star overruling him and having final cut. Arguably Rogan was the auteur even though he wasn't the director.

[Steve Crook]

LOL not sure they would appreciate that. Any thoughts on how the theory progressed after the criticism it received? Like how did they advance it so that the criticism wasn't so daming?

It was French critics who initially proposed it. When people criticised it they just gave a Gallic shrug

One trouble seems to be in defining what everyone means by it. When I've objected to it before a lot of people have come up with a lot of different definitions for what they mean by Auteur.

Steve

[Moor Larkin]

Writers seem to especially hate it. I suppose if it was called Author Theory, they'd be all for it.........

Oh for the days of theatre when the crowd would shriek "Author! Author!" and Oscar would stand reluctantly and bow graciously from his box.

I saw a film director and a writer discussing this briefly on Newsnight the other week and the director was politely dismissive and pooh-poohed it, whilst the writer clearly felt that only writers could be auteurs or authors.....

I also read a quote where some writer whinged that only "the writer" had to create from a blank screen [page]. Most writers seem to always complain that the film never turns out the way they wrote it anyhow, so some process must be going on.....