Auteur Theory, Directors and Storytelling

I’ve always been fascinated by the world of film and the film industry, and I think this is in largely in part to the ways in which it overlaps with literature and storytelling. The one thing I believe more than anything about the process of filmmaking (and I am by no means no type of authority on this, I am only speaking from modest experience being around filmmakers) is that a captivating, masterpiece type of movie needs one thing at its core – a necessary and arguably also sufficient condition: a good story. The tenacity with which I believe this is probably what attracted me most to Sarris’ article on auteur theory as the reading to focus on for this blog entry. I think that in a lot of people’s minds a good story is equated with a good director i.e. a director who is capable of putting forth a good story – and in the rarest of cases a director who is also the writer of the story. Those people (and it’s often a matter of counting them on one hand, really, because I think directing and writing are pretty separate skills and when someone does possess them both…I find that truly amazing in a wonder-filled way). Sarris points out that “Marlon Brando has shown us that a film can be made without a director,” a statement from a point of view that I understand and to a certain extent agree with (Kubrick missed out), but One-Eyed Jacks also features an action-packed story that lends itself very well to Brando’s on-screen persona.

Essentially, Sarris lays out three premises of auteur theory:

(1)   The technical competence of a director

(2)   The distinguishable personality of the director

(3)   The interior meaning – “the ultimate glory of the cinema as an art”

He explains that these three premises may be visualized as three concentric circles: the outer circle as technique; the middle circle, personal style; and the inner circle, interior meaning. He also specifies that the corresponding roles of the director may be designated as a technician, a stylist, and an auteur, and that there is no prescribed course by which a director passes through the three circles. I believe that the third circle is the one that resonates on the most concrete level with audiences. I thought Sarris’ argument that auteur theory itself “is a pattern theory in constant flux” (453) was particularly insightful, because as several of the readings for this week highlighted, one of the characteristics that sets film apart is its rapid pace – this allows it to connect to audiences in a unique and defining way. This pace, existing within the universe of rapid technological development, will undoubtedly affect the ways in which stories are told. I can see the connections between the directors on Sarris’ list of auteurs (Ophuls, Renoir, Mizoguchi, Hitchcock, Chaplin, Ford, Welles, Dreyer, Rossellini, Murnau, Griffith, Sternberg, Eisenstein, von Stroheim, Buñuel, Bresson, Hawks, Lang, Flaherty, and Vido) and I’d add Spielberg to it as well! I think his technical competence, personality, creation of interior meaning and flare for storytelling is a great example of ways in which the carrying out of auteur theory strikes a chord with audiences.

Here is a scene from E.T. (the infamous ‘ride in the sky’) that I think functions well when considered in conjunction with auteur theory: you can see the technical competence, Spielberg’s distinguishable personality (probably most notably through his characteristic use of the trope of childhood in telling a story; it’s not only the boys and the little girl who are kids, but E.T. is also a child, albeit an extraterrestrial one) and the “glory of the cinema as an art” as it’s not just bikes soaring at this point in the movie, but usually the audience’s smiles too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR1-UFrcZ0k

And a bonus that I think also works as a good illustration:

Landing Scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind