Auteur is the french word for "author", though the definition is wider than most of us think. It is similar to architect in English, meaning more than just someone who designs buildings. In film, this means that it is the person in charge of the film, the creator, the architect, author. It is the person whose own style and sensibilities shine through the piece. And in film it is often referred to as "Auteur Theory". I, however, am not sold on the word theory. "Auteur" isn't really a construct to look at the purpose of film, what film can do, what it should do. It is more a way of putting films in a certain context, reading the film and ultimately the Auteur him/herself. Do you see the difference?
A one time director, I would say, can't be an auteur. He/she has no style yet, no set tricks or specific sense of mise-en-scene (a term we'll get to later). Think of it this way, Spielberg has a very distinct command of mise-en-scene. Most of the time you can see a film and know if it is Spielberg or not. He is an auteur. No matter which camera man, editor, or screenwriter worked with him, you still see his influence.
This might lead one to say that the director is the auteur of the film. And while this is the general consensus, many still hold to the hope that the Auteur could be the screenwriter, for how could a movie even be made without a script? This area of thought is common among writers and the WGA. This is difficult, but remember, the definition of Auteur is not necessarily "one who is essential to creating the piece." If that were true, you might argue that the actor is the Auteur (and while I've heard this argument once, it is not a widely accepted argument). Think of it another way. How many screenwriter's do you know? And can you pick their films out of lineup? Is there a certain feel that only comes with that writer? A few might spring to mind, but now look closer, are they also the director of the film? I initially thought of names like Terrance Malick or M. Night Shyamalan, both also the directors of these films. I think, maybe the only name I can think of that might hold some weight with the argument is Charlie Kaufman. One name however, does not an argument make.
The reason this is important is that one way of reading films is through the lens of the "Auteur Theory" (ah, it just sounds wrong). One may look at a body of work from a single Auteur to complete a montage of meaning. Look at all of Coppola's work, Cecille B. DeMille, or Orson Welles. And really, this says more about the Auteur than it does the films themselves.
So, my question to you is this? Do you buy this? Can meaning really be derived from a viewing of the body of an artist's work? Is there someone else (a role in the production) that should be called the Auteur? Give me an example. And of course, who are your favorite Auteur, or future Auteur? Who was the first Auteur? Would you consider yourself an Autuer?
I hope this allows for a good discussion. Please feel free to comment.
Andrew Gilbert
(P.S. the director, Mikel J Wisler is quite busy, but we'll try to have his entry for next time.)
No comments:
Post a Comment