Fun with Auteurs

Can I start by saying that I love Pauline Kael? Sure, I've read some articles by her where I shake my head and think, "How dare she?" But I just love that she's modeled her entire academic and journalistic career on going against the movie grain and saying, "Nope, disagree; what's wrong with you people?" It gives me hope for my academic future. :)

But Kael butt-kissing aside, I did enjoy both the readings on the auteur theory and Kael's dissing of such theorizing. The auteur theory really is one of those instances where no one is going to agree on its value or even its essential meaning, which seems true even of its biggest proponents. I agree, though, with the pointing out of directorial style and assigning merit to a director for giving his or her own flair to their movies and being made recognizable by their own personal touches. Often, unless you are a titanic director like Spielberg or Scorsese, directors (and other crew) often fall out of the limelight in favor of the actors. But while the actors contribute, it is really the director (and other crew) calling the shots and shaping the film, including the film's actors, into the stories we love.

However, I agree with Kael that this does not mean that incapable directors should be praised for shoddy work just because they are consistent. Yes, I realize this is subjective. But at the same time, I do not believe in apologizing for a terrible film just because a fancy theory may be applied to it. By this definition, Uwe Boll could be considered as much of an auteur as Orson Welles or Howard Hawkes. That thought certainly frightens me.

I do think, though, that as the auteur theory has matured, such adulation of quote-unquote bad films/bad directors has fallen to the wayside; and seemingly, the auteur concept has closed itself to define directors who have a style but who incorporate that style into worthwhile films. Uwe Boll is not considered an auteur (except maybe by Boll himself), but someone like Martin Scorsese, Tim Burton, or Pedro Almodóvar could easily be assigned that title. This situation, though, may raise questions of elitism that we somewhat touched upon last week with the Culture Industry. Why do these directors get praised for making movies that are immediately recognizable because they contain so many familar elements (Scorsese's crime films, Burton's use of chiaroscuro and gothic techniques, Almodóvar's bright colors and strong female characters); but other directors get insulted for being hacks who just make the same movie over and over again? What determines this criteria? Is it just pre-determined? Do a director's films have to be Academy darlings or art house films in order for him or her to gain recognition as an auteur?

I like that there is a theory that gives directors recognition and allows people to discover the director, even when he/she is hidden behind the camera and the actors. However, as pointed out in the majority of the readings, it is also a problematic theory, as no one can really pinpoint who it should and should not apply to. Furthermore, it also discredits the work done by other crew members, such as the screenwriter and the editor. Perhaps that is why it is just a theory, though, and not law. After all, movie perception is all subjective; that is what makes the enjoyment of them - and their crews - so universal.