In week 4, we learned about the concept of “Auteur Theory” or Politique Des Auteurs, which was introduced by critics from Cahiers du Cinéma. This theory suggested that American cinema, previously overlooked, deserved serious study. It argued that the director, rather than just the studio or actors, could be considered the true creator of a film.
Andrew Sarris and the Auteur Theory
We explored Andrew Sarris’s influential notes on Auteur Theory from 1962. His work helped clarify the idea that a director’s personal touch and style make their films unique. He proposed three criteria for identifying an auteur:
Technique: The technical skill of the director.
Personal Style: The recurring features that define a director’s work.
Interior Meaning: The deeper meaning or personal vision expressed in the film.
Sarris used the metaphor of three concentric circles—technique, personal style, and interior meaning—to describe the role of the director as a technician, a stylist, and an auteur.
However, Sarris also pointed out that not every director follows a consistent style, and film quality isn’t just about the director. Elements like cinematography, editing, and acting also play important roles.
Pauline Kael’s Response
We also studied Pauline Kael’s critique of Auteur Theory in her essay “Circles and Squares”. Kael disagreed with Sarris’s ideas, arguing that Auteur Theory sometimes praises directors who use boring or obvious techniques. She believed critics should focus more on finding what’s fresh and new in films, rather than judging directors based on their technical growth.
Kael also pointed out that many great directors break conventional rules, and doing so doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not great filmmakers. Her perspective added depth to our understanding by showing that evaluating films is more complex than just looking at technical skills.
Modes of Auteurism
The discussion on modes of auteurism explored how the practical aspects of filmmaking—like how films are made and who is involved—can challenge traditional views of authorship. This idea opens up the possibility of “multiple auteurs,” meaning that various people, including creative personnel and even corporations, can shape a film’s identity.
Paul Wells and Animation’s Auteurism
Paul Wells highlighted how animation complicates the auteur debate. While animation often involves large-scale collaboration, it also allows for individual filmmakers to create almost entirely on their own. Wells describes the auteur as someone who brings together the film’s core themes, techniques, and expressive goals, creating a unified vision. In animation, the creator’s personal touch is often very visible, even in collaborative projects.
Wells also discussed Walt Disney as an example of an auteur in animation. Disney is seen as a major figure in the industry, but defining his specific mode of authorship is complex. Wells argued that Disney should be remembered for shaping the creative process of animation, rather than simply controlling it. This highlights the delicate balance between art and commerce in the animation world.
My Thoughts on Authorship in Animation
From my perspective, this week’s lesson emphasized that understanding authorship, especially in animation, requires looking beyond traditional ideas of who counts as the creator. It’s not just the director or the studio; many influences, including those from larger organizations like Disney, help shape the final work.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our exploration of Auteur Theory and its critiques has shown how complex the idea of authorship is in film and animation. Sarris’s framework emphasizes the director’s personal vision, while Kael’s critique points out the importance of innovation and collaboration. The modes of auteurism broaden our view, showing how many different factors—especially in animation—contribute to the creation of a film.