Read on Twitter
so, Auteur Theory.
you might be wondering what it is, or you might be wondering what's good or bad about it, or why there's been arguments about it, but the most important part is that you might be *curious* about it.
so let's talk about it.
(a thread):
you might be wondering what it is, or you might be wondering what's good or bad about it, or why there's been arguments about it, but the most important part is that you might be *curious* about it.
so let's talk about it.
(a thread):
to start, let's establish the definition:
auteur theory = the theory that a movie's director is the ultimate creative force/mind/authority on the film in question.
auteur theory can apply to all levels of popularity in art, but it's always the same. the director has the say.
auteur theory = the theory that a movie's director is the ultimate creative force/mind/authority on the film in question.
auteur theory can apply to all levels of popularity in art, but it's always the same. the director has the say.
and if you instinctively think this is a selfish concept, that's understandable! and you might have some questions about where auteur theory reaches its limits, or where it is allowed to apply. so let's think about these questions.
"what if the director wasn't the original writer?"
it can still be applied, both for novel adaptations and remakes. it is still a process of taking the work of another designated "auteur" but that doesn't stop the new voice from reshaping it.
it can still be applied, both for novel adaptations and remakes. it is still a process of taking the work of another designated "auteur" but that doesn't stop the new voice from reshaping it.
"what if the director is problematic/a bad person?"
this is much more iffy to work out, but it generally boils down to a simple "it depends."
many auteurs show their worst traits and views proudly.
but many auteurs will have art that directly contradicts/combats their hubris.
this is much more iffy to work out, but it generally boils down to a simple "it depends."
many auteurs show their worst traits and views proudly.
but many auteurs will have art that directly contradicts/combats their hubris.
"doesn't everybody else deserve credit too?"
this relies a lot on the behavior of the director.
being acknowledged as an artistic voice =/= stealing all the credit.
asserting yourself as the *only* artistic voice = stealing all the credit.
this relies a lot on the behavior of the director.
being acknowledged as an artistic voice =/= stealing all the credit.
asserting yourself as the *only* artistic voice = stealing all the credit.
it is obvious to anybody with even a slight interest in film that the process of making movies is heavily collaborative, on both large and small scales. this proposed form of "labor plagiarism" is definitely possible, but its existence doesn't eliminate auteur value.
the director, by professional definition, is the person who *directs* the production of a movie. they can often be the writer of the script, they can even be an actor, but by the simplest version of their job, they still have a lot to work with.
as a director, it's your job in some way to direct your actors, direct your writers, direct your crew, director your grips and your gaffers and lighting and your audio-technicians. it's a lot to have for one job.
it is ultimately up to the director for how personal that job is.
it is ultimately up to the director for how personal that job is.
but even then, try to forget "auteur theory" as a term. imagine a director, any director, making a movie.
this is a living, breathing human. with preferences, and a brain, and their own ideas of art.
do you really expect any director to have the same voice as another?
this is a living, breathing human. with preferences, and a brain, and their own ideas of art.
do you really expect any director to have the same voice as another?
this can say a lot about your view of art in general.
do you believe that art, as a culture, is singular in some form to the person who makes it? even in the slightest way?
if so, then what even are "auteurs" truly?
art is human. humans are complex. blankness is impossible.
do you believe that art, as a culture, is singular in some form to the person who makes it? even in the slightest way?
if so, then what even are "auteurs" truly?
art is human. humans are complex. blankness is impossible.
and this can bring up other questions relating to directors who take on true "one-person-show" endeavors, or filmmakers working with smaller crews due to pandemic conditions. large-scale and small-scale filmmaking are different entities, but still quite similar.
think of the wachowski sisters as an example.
two directors who are among the most unselfish people in filmmaking right now.
is there really any argument for the wachowskis *not* being auteurs in every sense? and they still work large-scale.
two directors who are among the most unselfish people in filmmaking right now.
is there really any argument for the wachowskis *not* being auteurs in every sense? and they still work large-scale.
"auteur theory" is still relative, but so are auteurs.
auteur theory is not a flawed idea. it makes for a MASSIVE bulk of why movies are so, so great.
the flaws are relative to the auteurs.
it is the auteur's choice if they want to act selfishly. but auteurism =/= selfishness
auteur theory is not a flawed idea. it makes for a MASSIVE bulk of why movies are so, so great.
the flaws are relative to the auteurs.
it is the auteur's choice if they want to act selfishly. but auteurism =/= selfishness
with that, i'll end the thread with one more statement that this is ultimately my own opinion. obviously this is my own view on it. but i believe auteurism deserves to be afforded some more consideration and thought than a simple "it sucks." nobody makes art alone.
