Auteur Theory Deconstructed

[Flint]

The "Uncredited Welles" thread with its discussion of film authorship issues, has lead me to some thoughts.

It seems that among those directors regarded as "auteurs" they seem to fall into several camps:

1) The Thematic Auteur. This director finds an affinity for a very narrow, particular format or genre early on and continues within these parameters for most of his/her career. Usually has very high output. Ex: Woody Allen, John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Bergman.

2) The Epic Auteur. This director's films, while thematically linked, vary considerably in regards to genre from work to work but are very demanding technically with usually large “scope”/high concept story. At their best when making “Big” films. Typically extended shoots lead to much lower output than the Thematic Auteur. Ex: Kubrick, Lean, Copolla, Mann, Bertolucci, Tarkovsky.

3) The Artist Auteur. Director with very distinct visual aesthetic which permeates entire production design and which carries through from film to film. Usually works within various genres. Ex: Gilliam, Burton, Lynch.

4) The Visual Stylist. A subset of the Artist Auteur. This director’s imprint is manifested most strongly in his unique frame compositions and camera style. Hitchcock, Kubrick, Cohen Bros, Welles. (some overlap with other catagories)

5) The Journeyman Auteur. Mostly a “hired hand” on projects not initiated by them, but still imbues the films with their personal stamp. Technically very proficient, solid though unflashy style. Usually high output. Ex: Wise, Sirk, Frankenheimer.

6) Producer Auteur. Does not direct yet completely controls artistic content of picture. Ex: Disney, Pal, Selznick.

Anyone agree, or is this all B.S.?

-Flint

[mteal]

It's not all B.S., as your catagories have a certain degree of validity, but I think there are so many different ways to catagorize auteurs that practically all of them will be hopelessly inadaquate, and for the reason you cited above: it's not that SOME of the above-listed filmmakers overlap with other catagories. I's that almost ALL of them do.

Welles was one of the great visual stylists, sure, but he was also a great sound stylist as well, and there are several basic "themes", such as anti-modernism, and anti-nationalism that run throughout Welles' work, giving them profound substance as well as style.

I think Welles also belongs in a very select category of auteurs that did it in front of the camera as well as behind. Others would include Chaplin, Woody Allen, Jaques Tati, Clint Eastwood, and - gag me with a spoon - even Jerry Lewis. Of course stylistically, Welles' films bear very little resemblance to theirs.

[Flint]

Mteal-
I totally agree with everything you've said. And yet...Chaplin & Tati could be grouped with Allen and the "Thematic Auteurs". I'm not familiar enough with Eastwood's work to know how I'd catagorize him.

I guess I just find it very interesting to note the comonalities among the directors that I admire and how they do seem to fall into specific groups. How a set of traits in one artist can be observed in another.

If anyone has taken any film theory classes, I would be interested to know if directors are ever discussed in these terms or only as a part of larger "movements".

-Flint.

[Sir Bygber Brown]

Yeah - you've put a lot of thought into those categories. Very interesting. Quite a good scheme.

I always wondered what Welles meant when he called people "Journeymen directors". Usually as a term of derision. He said it was the sort of director he never wanted to be. The sort of thing he very easily could have slipped into, i think, but chose the harder road. Unless i'm remembering badly. He said something at least remotely similar to that. Jeff will probably remember the quote exactly. I think its in This is Orson Welles.

[Flint]

Sir Brown-
From what I know of Welles (and there are many here who will correct me if I'm wrong - and please do!) his remarks about "Journeymen Directors" occured about the time of "The Stranger" which was very much a project where he was "brought on board" and given very little leeway. Hence the term "Journeyman" or "Hired hand" if you will. He surmised that he could have gone on making very commercial pictures like this, but that they would have not been "his".
I think Orson was somewhat underestimating his ability, but I do think for HIM this was the correct decision as he would not have been working at the peak of his creative ability. His sensiblities were (for the time) very non-commercial and I am so glad he chose to strike out on his own, and make the kinds of films he wanted to - despite having to lose the technical finesse of Hollywood studio productions.
However, I do not personally view the so-called
"Journeyman Director" in any kind of disparaging light what so ever. I'd take the career of a Robert Wise anyday.

-Flint.

P.S. Speaking of Wise, one of his trademarks is his use of a lense with two different focal points. I've never seen anyone else use this. Anyone know anything about this?

[Sir Bygber Brown]

Tough question. I totally understand why Welles would not want to trust Hollywood again after what happened to Ambersons, Shanghai, and then, to a lesser extent (though i haven't seen the studio cut) to Touch of Evil (though perhaps this was the greatest crime of all). And if i had made Citizen Kane, and then made the work which the complete Ambersons seems to have been, and then had the studio release what we now have (which, we all can admit, is only half the story) - i would take ten years to finance each picture, if that was what it took for final cut.

Yet, if a hired hand is the definition of Journeyman, Welles was a kind of hired hand on Touch of Evil, which is, i think, his greatest achievement, because it is the perfect marriage of artistry and spectacle. If i could have had Welles making twenty pictures like Touch of Evil, and someone was able to restore them to Welles' vision after the fact, i would pick that for sure (as a viewer and lover of Welles' films). However, again, if it had been my films that were constantly being changed around after i'd finished with them, there's no way i would have agreed to it.

Then again, he wasn't really given the option was he. One of the main key times he was offered a contract and turned it down because it didn't include final cut was on Other Side of the Wind, i think. Anyway, this is a pretty touchy subject with Wellesians, i fear - and understandably.