“One man writes a novel.
One man writes a symphony.
It is essential for one man to make a film”
Stanley Kubrick
Few people would profess to know the meaning of the phrase “auteur theory”, fewer could legitimately say that they followed it. The premise of auteur theory derives from the “Golden Era” of Hollywood, so called perhaps more out of nostalgia than cultural achievement. It was a theory that believed that a director must be the author of a film – the film, in turn, must therefore by undeniably the creative child of the director. The most famous of such original directors was Alfred Hitchcock, whose unequivocal style even included a customary appearance as an extra in at least one scene.
It was a theory that believed that a director must be the author of a film – the film, in turn, must therefore by undeniably the creative child of the director
Francois Truffaut took the theory a step further in his article “Une certaine tendance du cinema française”, a defence of his art form and that of his colleagues. Written in 1954, auteur theory was at its peak, before losing popularity in the 60s going on 70s. Truffaut argued that without auteur the director was merely a stager, and that films lost their originality, and become boring and mechanical. Yet, there were also critics, especially seminary film journalist Pauline Kael, who warned that “repetition without development is decline”. The originality of Truffaut was turned against him; it subsided into a byword for staleness. A lull occurred throughout the 70s and 80s. Whilst Martin Scorsese, infamous from the 70s onwards, has his quirks – use of Rolling Stones songs, recurring actors – there are surprisingly little currents that connect his plethora of films.
This is why Quentin Tarantino managed to blast through Hollywood with his first mainstream feature, “Pulp Fiction” (1994). Unapologetic in his style, Tarantino’s first film has as much genetic similarity to his most recent foray, “Django Unchained” (2012). It has a gimmicky, cartoon-like quality, and violence that likely would not be acceptable in any other feature but his. Few people could enter a screening of a Tarantino flick unawares of the style of film they were about to witness. He brought back to life the writer-director, something that is becoming an increasing presence in modern Hollywood.
In his footsteps has followed Wes Anderson, darling of the indie-mainstream genre. A much slower progression into stardom, “Moonrise Kingdom” (2012) was one of the most successful indie films ever, with a star studded cast of loyal Anderson-ites. His style is twee art, brushed so even the language is carefully stencilled in the mouths of the actors. Emotion is portrayed through panes of glass; it can be hard to see the depths, though really everything is laid out for us in colourful and tuned scenes. One might even suggest that Christopher Nolan has carved himself into an auteur theorist – “Inception” (2010) being an easily recognisable child of his among the Batman trilogy. His use of epic music, courtesy of Hans Zimmer, and consistent recasting of actors, is only a supplement to the large-scale scenes he creates, coupled with complex and multidimensional scripts. It is his trademark of excellence with which few can compete. It might not be similar to the independent twee and sublime Anderson, but it nonetheless draws from auteur.
This is why Quentin Tarantino managed to blast through Hollywood with his first mainstream feature, “Pulp Fiction” (1994). Unapologetic in his style, Tarantino’s first film has as much genetic similarity to his most recent foray, “Django Unchained” (2012). It has a gimmicky, cartoon-like quality, and violence that likely would not be acceptable in any other feature but his. Few people could enter a screening of a Tarantino flick unawares of the style of film they were about to witness. He brought back to life the writer-director, something that is becoming an increasing presence in modern Hollywood.
In his footsteps has followed Wes Anderson, darling of the indie-mainstream genre. A much slower progression into stardom, “Moonrise Kingdom” (2012) was one of the most successful indie films ever, with a star studded cast of loyal Anderson-ites. His style is twee art, brushed so even the language is carefully stencilled in the mouths of the actors. Emotion is portrayed through panes of glass; it can be hard to see the depths, though really everything is laid out for us in colourful and tuned scenes. One might even suggest that Christopher Nolan has carved himself into an auteur theorist – “Inception” (2010) being an easily recognisable child of his among the Batman trilogy. His use of epic music, courtesy of Hans Zimmer, and consistent recasting of actors, is only a supplement to the large-scale scenes he creates, coupled with complex and multidimensional scripts. It is his trademark of excellence with which few can compete. It might not be similar to the independent twee and sublime Anderson, but it nonetheless draws from auteur.
It could be that there has become economic benefit in carving a niche
Why the sudden rise in their success? It could be that there has become economic benefit in carving a niche. Like authors of other kinds, having a following and a recognisable trend allows a director to have relative safety that in some way their work will always have an audience. Economic security is increasingly important in a volatile era of Hollywood profits. In a recent “Sunday Times” interview, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas exchanged worried thoughts on the future of the film economy. Increasingly high budget features and producing far higher risks; “Mars Needs Moms” (2011) was the worst box-office bomb in film history, unadjusted for inflation, costing $150million and bringing in just over $20million in the USA.
However, there is also a factor of personality lust that prevails in society. The “celebrity culture” has arisen as an appetite for great personalities has increased. From this, people are able to obtain entertainment and enjoy some schadenfreude as they watch the tumultuous (or sometimes not) lives of those in the spotlight. Knowing the director can mean knowing their work on a deeper level. It provides access to a film without requiring specific film knowledge or keen reading around the subject. It provides indulgence for the filmgoer – knowing that the Nolans wrote “Inception” only increased our excessive need to conclude its open ending.
Of course, there is a certain cyclical nature to auteur. If Tarantino had not managed to produce a success with “Pulp Fiction”, or Anderson with “Fantastic Mr Fox” (2009), it is unlikely that people would look forward to their work with the anticipation received last season. Tarantino too, has suffered a fair share of feature flops. A notable example of an obscure auteur theorist was Kathryn Bigelow, who achieved international stardom with “The Hurt Locker” (2008). Her follow up film, “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), managed a pre-release hype due not just to its controversial and hard-hitting contents, but Bigelow’s directorial force. Yet before this, Bigelow managed to achieve success only within a relative obscurity to her mainstream counterparts, though her style remained succinct throughout. It is likely that there are more directors who, without their necessary break, are offered no help by following auteur theories.
However, there is also a factor of personality lust that prevails in society. The “celebrity culture” has arisen as an appetite for great personalities has increased. From this, people are able to obtain entertainment and enjoy some schadenfreude as they watch the tumultuous (or sometimes not) lives of those in the spotlight. Knowing the director can mean knowing their work on a deeper level. It provides access to a film without requiring specific film knowledge or keen reading around the subject. It provides indulgence for the filmgoer – knowing that the Nolans wrote “Inception” only increased our excessive need to conclude its open ending.
Of course, there is a certain cyclical nature to auteur. If Tarantino had not managed to produce a success with “Pulp Fiction”, or Anderson with “Fantastic Mr Fox” (2009), it is unlikely that people would look forward to their work with the anticipation received last season. Tarantino too, has suffered a fair share of feature flops. A notable example of an obscure auteur theorist was Kathryn Bigelow, who achieved international stardom with “The Hurt Locker” (2008). Her follow up film, “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), managed a pre-release hype due not just to its controversial and hard-hitting contents, but Bigelow’s directorial force. Yet before this, Bigelow managed to achieve success only within a relative obscurity to her mainstream counterparts, though her style remained succinct throughout. It is likely that there are more directors who, without their necessary break, are offered no help by following auteur theories.
It seems inevitable that opinions will once again change, and the definition of a good director will take on the adaptability akin to their actor counterparts
Auteur has returned to cinema, and in the most spectacular of fashions. It swept through the 2012 season, topping box offices and awards ceremonies alike. Yet, it should be seen as a fashion. Auteur fits our current world, its trends and its need for faces and big names. Alongside that, it has positive economic benefits. It seems inevitable that opinions will once again change, and the definition of a good director will take on the adaptability akin to their actor counterparts. But auteur directors ought to be appreciated for their commitment to their craft, and for the modern golden age they have currently provided.