Downside to the Auteur Theory

Most filmy people subscribe to some version of the auteur theory that the director is the author of a work. Truffaut went so far as to say, "There are no good and bad films, only good and bad directors."

The basic idea is that despite film being a collaborative and industrial undertaking, good films are by filmmakers who leverage the tools and industry to create a personal work. Of course many of the great films, especially from the French New Wave and the American 70s are auteur films, and the theory was developed from the work of Hitchcock, Hawks, and Renior. The auteur theory is the predominant theory of how film is taught all around the world today - from within Hollywood to all the regional cinemas of the world.

What I find distastelful about much discussion surrounding "auteur" work is the privileged status auteur films are given by filmy people. We tend to think auteur work is better than non-auteur or industrial work such as television or comic book studio movies. And from my recent Netflix viewing I have two auteurs I would like to advance as evidence: Ed Zwick and Jackie Chan.

As much as any current American director, including Michael Mann and Martin Scorcese, Ed Zwick must be considered an auteur. All of his films deal with the same themes - injustice, war, political and civil rights, and have some sort of heavy handed liberal message. They are glossy, emotionally wrought works which almost always do well at the box office. They normally feature a hero working within the system to make small changes. His work includes Glory, The Seige, Blood Diamond, Courage Under Fire, and the Last Samuari. He often works with Denzel Washington. I don't dislike Ed Zwick movies, but I don't proudly list him off as one of my favorite filmmakers.

Even less could be said about Jackie Chan. He is as familiar to people around the world as nearly any movie star. He does not direct all of his movies, but has directed several. He had enormous control of his hong kong movies and early American films. All of them had the same features - ridiculous fighting sequences, cheesy acting, virginal/sister like female characters, goofy bad guys, and humongous stunt/action sequences. Jackie Chan is always a do-gooder who gets wrapped up in some sort of fight against bad guys too numerous to count and ends up needing to defeat them more or less single-handedly. The auteur theory must expand to Jackie Chan movies because he clearly leverages the industry of filmmaking to tell a personal vision.

I point out these two auteurs in an effort to de-privilege auteur work. Because I think it is both false and unuseful to put too much weight on the auteur. Historically, there are a number of examples of great work that have counterbalanced the auteur theory - the classic example being Casablanca, a completely studio engineered masterwork. Other examples of great collaboration are Citizen Kane and The Third Man (ironically the auteur theory could argue for Orsen Welles)...but I've also been thinking about this in terms of television shows recently as I went to panel on Friday Night Lights the other night and the recent end of the Sopranos.

I was surprised to hear how FNL works in that Peter Berg essentially wrote and directed the pilot, hired the entire cast and when the show got picked up, handed over most of the control to a showrunner. The pilot is unbelievable, but a lot of the later shows are great in a way one could not have necessarily seen in the pilot episode. Not to mention that this is a derivative work from a prior book and film...despite many of the characters being added and changed and switched around between versions. I don't know how this could possibly be considered an auteur work - who would it be? Peter Berg? Buzz Bissinger? It would be weird to consider it such because they have little to nothing to do with the current project which is being run by Jason Katims.

The same goes for Sopranos. Everyone talks about David Chase, but fans of the show would be stupid for not noticing the input of Terence Winter and Tim van Patton not to mention a series of other directors and writers.

In any case, there are very few directors whose every work I enjoy. Sure, I'd take any Michael Mann film over any film by Brett Ratner...but the recent Grindhouse movie threw me for a big loop as I enjoyed the Rodriguez film considerably more than the Tarantino movie and couldn't say anything but the opposite about those two filmmakers prior to Grindhouse. Time affects directors in different ways...look at Clint Eastwood's later work compared to his early work - or even the two films he did last year: Flags vs. Letters. Or try to watch all Godard or Herzog films. These guys are brilliant and times and completely unwatchable at others. Same goes for Renais and Soderburgh. I see filmmaking more like a sport. Some days you are on, other days you are not. Some players have one great season - remember Brady Anderson? Others are great for extended period of time - Larry Bird, Michael Jordan. Some players simply have great moments. Some players transcend at certain aspects of their sport but their teams underperform - Barry Bonds and Kobe Bryant. I think filmmakers experience the same type of ups and downs. Robert Altman had a stretch of films in the 70s where he was prolific and amazing, then fell off the planet seemingly for the same amount of time.

Anyway