Auteurs and Venn Diagrams

Even with Kael's criticism of Sarris's underdeveloped theory of Auteurism, I am convinced that, at least so far, this is my preferred theory of film. I propose an adaptation of Sarris's "three concentric circles" of auteurism (technical, style, "interior meaning") Why not rearrange the circles into that handy relic from junior high, the venn diagram?

Now we have room for those interesting exceptions that Kael points out (and Hannah referenced): " . . . sometimes the greatest artists in a medium bypass or violate the simple technical competence that is so necessary for hacks . . ." (Kael 267). A quick mental exercise for examples of where Directors might fall in this diagram:

Technical: Michael Bay, Joel Schumacher

Stylist: Tim Burton

Interior Meaning: Ang Lee

Technical/Stylist: Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Errol Morris

Style/Interior Meaning: Danny Boyle, Wachowski Brothers

Auteurism: Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Coen brothers

Stanley Kubrick is by far my favorite director, and I felt a certain kinship to Sarris when he (slightly awkwardly and later ripped apart by Kael) expressed his love of "Every Night at Eight" and how Raoul Walsh's previous work allowed him to enjoy that film even more through their similarities. Kubrick's greatest films (2001, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, Shining, Full Metal Jacket) are all fantastic individually, but through a collective viewing the film critic can see how Kubrick's "auteurism" develops, peaks, morphs, draws from the past, and reaches a personal "post-auteurism." If we are to view film as art, why not ask questions about how art is viewed in other mediums? Picassos are viewed in relationship to each other (and "periods" are created by art critics). Book critics review a novel's place in an author's collective works. Albums are almost always viewed as an advancement, a repetition, or a decline from a musician's previous collection. Why should film be regarded as a singular work and not as a stop along an auteur's path?

The criticism of auteurism want to turn the word back into the English word "author." They argue that directors are not singular artists and part of a collective. But the great directors incorporate all creators of a film into a team dedicated to their vision. The team becomes the auteur with the director at the helm.

In my opinion, of the film theories studied so far, auteurism also most closely matches the film theorist and the modern film critic. Film critics are known for preferring foreign films and independents over studio fare. Perhaps this is related to studio's wrenching of artistic control from the director and thus destroying any potential "auteurism" present in the film leaving the viewer with a Frankenstein-like mismatch of Studio executive's preferences, test-audience reactions, and MPAA censorships.

Auteurism isn't going anywhere. Great directors will continue to create cults-of-personalities around them, critics will continue to analyze films through the director's intent, audiences will continue to see movies because their trust their creators. If we have concluded that there is no singular inclusive theory of art, why attempt to destroy the one that so many spectators readily enjoy?