Where's the beef?

Is the relevance of the notion of authorship enhanced or diminished by a greater understanding of what filmmakers actually do?



One of the essential dilemmas when considering the notion, or even the feasibility of authorship is to consider its changing role in film history. In attempting to analyse the concept of authorship, which if we use Francois Truffaut’s model of the auteur as defined in his 1954 essay in Cahier du cinema, results in the introduction of a creative hierarchy that places filmmaking in the same realm of critical analysis of literature or art, by asserting a hegemonic “vision” in an artistic sense, usually attributed to the director. This concept becomes problematic as it negates the collaborative nature of the filmmaking process not only by supplanting the technical and industrial aspects of production but also by asserting creative control in the hands of the director, dismissing the artistic contributions of the other filmmaking departments such as cinematography, sound design, acting, and writing. The relevance of such a theory becomes more problematic when trying to assert its position in the highly diversified filmmaking industry today, not to mention its coherence in the classical Hollywood system before the vertical disintegration of the old studio system following 1948 Paramount antitrust lawsuit.

If one identifies the basic concepts of auteur theory, as pertaining to mis en scène, through which “many auteuristic critics uncover a stylistic ‘signature’ in the visuals which the attribute to an author/auteur,”[1] what emerges is the assertion of a creative figurehead through which it is believed the artistry of a film emanates. This, asserts that in filmmaking there is a clear “vision” of what the film should look like that is realised by director. If one extrapolates this as discerning a creative control over a film project, then there are certainly instances in which this belief can be accommodated, most often cited are the works of directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, or John Ford, whose works are often linked to certain visual styles and genres (suspense thrillers and westerns respectively). In Hitchcock’s films there are re-occurring thematic motifs such as voyeurism which are often twinned cinematically with extended takes and point of view shots such as in the establishing shot of Rear Window (1954). This is certainly indicative of what the Cahier group would identify as an auteuristic style. However there are certain problems in addressing the filmed medium in these sorts of critical terms; Susan Hayward points out that:

“As a result of this misuse of the term, cinema became divided into a canon of the ‘good’ or ‘great’ directors and the rest. The initial impact of this on film courses and film studies in general was considerable, the tendency being to study only the good or great canon.”[2]

This concept of the good/great directors has the effect of overlooking the other aspects of creative input that result in the finished product. If we take Rear Window as an example we can see how the primacy of the director as the creative genius begins to break down. Though Hitchcock directed and produced the film, there are considerable other contributors to the film’s aesthetic. Though Hitchcock is praised for his visual style and long takes, one has to take into consideration that these takes were only possible because of the set design which was completely fabricated on one of the Paramount sound stages, and how the contribution of cinematographer Robert Burks, whose ability to manipulate the set photographically was of immense importance in realising the film’s style, and earned him an Academy Award nomination in 1955.[3] Often overlooked as well is the contribution of the sound department, for having to create a complete naturalistic sound environment for the film as well as creating nuanced musical themes to tie into the plot (notably the progression of the songwriter’s character); Loren L. Ryder was also nominated for this work.[4] These contributions call into question David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson’s definition of the director being the author of a particular film, that being “the director [as having] most control over how a movie looks and sounds.”[5] If those in charge of different film departments such as cinematography, editing and sound design are recognised independently by the AMPAS[6] for their contributions then it suggests creative centrality is not necessarily a viable conclusion even in films which it is purported to be most evident. This is one of the core debates surrounding the issue of auteurism. The focus on auteurism as identifiable by mis en scène, has as Gianluca Sergi and Alan Lovell criticise, “encouraged a dogmatic belief that cinema is a visual medium. [And] As a consequence, the role of sound has been neglected.”[7] By assuming that the art is in the image, the collective properties of filmmaking are subsumed, which in the modern industry has had huge repercussions; Notably the animosity between the Writers Guild of America and the Directors Guild of America, where consternation has arisen over artistic credit for films. Auteur theory has encouraged a belief that the director is the artist and has the driving vision of the film, whereas the screenwriters maintain that the creative input originates from the ideas and scripts from which the film is generated. This is a crucial dispute especially if one takes in to consideration as Sergi and Lovell do that “the majority view amongst filmmakers is that the scripts is the most important part of filmmaking.”[8]Even Andre Bazin, the co-founder of Cahier du cinema, was outspoken about this application of auteur theory. Where the theories place emphasis on the progression and continuity of style as identifying an auteur/author, Bazin argued that “in film the artistic variables are so numerous and so constantly changing from one production to the other that it is difficult to...discover who the auteur of any film really is.”[9] Though Bazin’s main criticisms focus on labelling auteurs, regardless of artistic merit and simply for having recognisable cannon of work, he does point out one of the major flaws of auteur theory, the identification of a single source or creative input.

These flaws in the auteur theory can be related back to its premise as trying to create a new rhetoric for analysing film in terms of other art forms such as literature where the creative input can largely be identified as singular. Hayward identifies that a considerable influence on the theorising came from attempts “to attack the French cinema of the time which they considered sclerotic.”[10] Which as she points out; “because film is being looked at for its formalistic, stylistic and thematic structures, unconscious structure (such as the unspoken dynamics between film-maker and actor, the economic pressures connected with the industry) is precluded”[11] Though the Cahier group were enabling an academic discourse around film which was to become more prevalent in the 1960s and 70s with the teaching of film and cultural studies at universities the theories surrounding the concept of the auteur created a rhetoric around film that diminished the attention on the technical side of filmmaking. Though the art versus technology debate had existed since the early days of filmmaking, the prevalence of the auteur theory, it can be argued, placed an emphasis on artistic hegemony which was in the 1960’s with the emergence of the New Hollywood moved to create a cult of the artist around certain directors such as Francis Ford Coppola and Peter Bogdanovich, who in light of economic instability in the industry were allowed unprecedented control over their own films.

By the start or the 1980s however this had changed, Peter Biskind, remarks how the belief in auteurism had succumbed to its own myths about the importance of the director as visionary: “All but the most tenacious and disciplined directors of the ‘70s who had managed to walk the tightrope between art and commerce, fell to their deaths in the ‘80s.”[12] Instead they were replaced in-part by the control of executive heads and producers such as Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson who operated in a fashion not unlike the Classic Hollywood system of hiring in talent to put forth their vision of what a film should be, Simpson stated that:

“We don’t take a passive role in any shape or form. Some directors who shall remain nameless do regard movies as an extension of their internal emotional landscape, but Jerry and I decide on the movie we want to make. We then hire an all-star team who can implement the vision. I don’t believe in the auteur theory.[13]

If we consider Simpson’s statement in light of the collaborative process in modern filmmaking we can assess whether or not the term auteur is relevant to mainstream filmmaking today. One aspect of film production, often overlooked by critical film theory, is the economic factors that determine much of what is produced in Hollywood at the present. The predominance of the blockbuster phenomenon, that I shall argue began in modern context with the release of Jaws (1975), has engendered the Hollywood film industry with an ever increasing focus on box office revenues and ancillary marketing as a necessity to cover the high costs of production and distribution. Tino Balio argues that modern Hollywood “remains committed to megapics and saturation booking, which have the combined effect of dominating most of the important screens around the world.”[14] In the face of this reliance on large pictures to fuel the industry and the conglomeration of studios with international media corporations such as the merger of Time and Warner in 1989, it is questionable whether or not filmmakers who have to adhere to the ideologies and corporate responsibilities of their larger international affiliates can retain auteur status, especially in the highly competitive environment of blockbuster production where the inherent financial risks of filmmaking are greatly magnified. Balio argues that this kind of globalisation “hastened the concentration of media by emphasising economies of scale,”[15] which it can be argued has diminished the central role of the director to a technical position within production, having been usurped in over-all creative control by the producers. In this environment the emphasis on the collaborative process becomes more apparent. If we take for example Spiderman (2002) to examine the process of collaboration, the placement of a single creative entity becomes problematic. As with many blockbusters, the Spiderman franchise is based on a pre-sold property[16], so it could be argued that creative citation should be given to Steve Ditko and Stan Lee who claim ownership of the Spiderman intellectual property from their work in the comic books. However even before we mention the film there had been an ongoing dispute about the creative inspiration for the character of Spiderman. “Jack Kirby, in a 1982 interview, claimed Lee had minimal involvement in the character's creation, and that it had originated with Kirby and Joe Simon, who in the 1950s had proposed a character called The Silver Spider.”[17] Even between Lee and Ditko there remained dispute as Ditko created the original concept drawing for the Spiderman character whilst Lee was involved in the creating the story line. With the conversion to film more complications arise; whereas Lee was an executive producer, the screenplay, adapted from various comic book storylines was penned by David Koepp, and the iconic costume, redesigned by James Acheson.[18] Amidst this creative frenzy, it is hard to assess the contribution of director Sam Raimi who considering his foundation in the horror genre with the Evil Dead trilogy, does not appear to exemplify the continuity, or the creative control of an auteur director in Truffaut’s definition of the term.

Warren Buckland identifies that there might still be a place in modern Hollywood for a consideration of authorship. Using the example of Steven Spielberg, arguably the most successful commercial director in contemporary Hollywood, Buckland argues that “an auteur in contemporary Hollywood is a director who gains control over all stages of filmmaking: not just film production, but also distribution and exhibition.”[19] With Spielberg’s prominence as a hugely profitable film director and his accessibility to distribution and exhibition through his joint ownership of DreamWorks studios with Jeffery Katzenberg and David Geffen, he could be considered to be a modern auteur as Buckland defines it. However Spielberg is notably the exception to the rule, being almost unique in his influence in Hollywood compared to the vast majority of directors who have nowhere near the creative control he can accrue when making a film. It is also important to remember that even though Spielberg has the ability to assert complete creative control over his projects he does not. He is often involved in a producer/director capacity, bringing in writers and editors on projects not to mention his lifelong affiliation with composer John Williams whose creative input has become synonymous with Spielberg’s films. Spielberg also, due to the financial risks of large budget filmmaking co-finances and co-distributes his films. Saving Private Ryan (1998) for example was co-distributed by Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks Distribution, Image Entertainment and United International Pictures[20] (among seventeen of the film’s distributors). It is questionable then whether or not in modern Hollywood, authorial control can be assigned to just one person. Though a director such as Steven Spielberg is often the figurehead of a certain production, it is not possible, especially considering the enormous and multifarious processes of filmmaking[21] that one person can be considered an auteur. With the “vision” of a film in the most basic production deliberated between the writer, director, cinematographer and editor, all of which lay claim to the creation of what the film looks like, it seems doubtable that the relevance or even conception of authorship can be ascribed to any particular role in filmmaking. The emphasis, I believe should therefore be on determining how efficient the collaborative process of film production is at creating aesthetic and entertaining films.





[1] Graeme Turner, Film as Social Practice, (London: Routledge, 1988) p. 44.
[2] Susan Hayward, Cinema Studies: Key Concepts. (Florence, USA: Routledge, 2000) pp. 19-27.

[3] www.imdb.com, accessed 12/05/07
[4] www.imdb.com, accessed 12/05/07
[5] Alan Lovell and Gianluca Sergi, Making Films in Contemporary Hollywood, (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) p. 114.
[6] Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences
[7] Alan Lovell and Gianluca Sergi, Making Films in Contemporary Hollywood, (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) p. 10.
[8] Alan Lovell and Gianluca Sergi, Making Films in Contemporary Hollywood, (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) p. 115.
[9] Donald E. Staples, The Auteur Theory Reexamined, Cinema Journal, Vol. 6. (1966 - 1967), pp. 1-7. Accessed from http://links.jstor.org 12/05/07

[10] Susan Hayward, Cinema Studies: Key Concepts. (Florence, USA: Routledge, 2000) pp. 19-27.
[11] Susan Hayward, Cinema Studies: Key Concepts. (Florence, USA: Routledge, 2000) pp. 19-27.
[12] Peter Biskind, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, (London: Bloomsbury, 1998) p. 408.
[13] Alan Lovell and Gianluca Sergi, Making Films in Contemporary Hollywood, (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) p. 19.
[14] Tino Balio, The Globalization of Hollywood in the 1990s, from Steve Neale and Murray Smith (eds.), Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, (London: Routledge, 1998) p. 70.
[15] Ibid
[16] Carrying with it a pre-existent fan base which reduces the risk of commercial failure by already having been proven as a profitable commodity.
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiderman accessed 12/05/07
[18] www.imdb.com, accessed 12/05/07
[19] Warren Buckland, The Role of the Auteur in the Age of the Blockbuster, in Julian Stringer (ed.) Movie Blockbusters, (London: Routledge, 2003) p. 84.
[20] www.imdb.com, accessed 12/05/07
[21] Which now include computer generated graphics which often require a separate directing and creative staff.