Curtiz, genres and authors, oh my!

The part of this article that interested me most was the role of genre. Is a director more credible if he can successfully make films in multiple genres? Or is it better to focus on one genre and add a unique twist to this genre?? Bazin's arguments about genres throughout the article were quite interesting. While Bazin argues that "the skill of the popular artist consists of fulfilling predictable expectations while introducing a renovatory degree of variation", it can also noted that maybe directors of these genre films simply know how to read the formula that genre typically follows and fit the script into the formula. Many popular films are not exactly innovative or unique. More often than not, this "renovatory degree of variation" is not renovatory at all. Most people have certain genres of films that they enjoy and actually don't like seeing something new or innovative. However, the article goes on to show that while typically Curtiz worked within set genres, he could be considered an auteur because of his power over his creativity within the genre and within the studio setting. While films are not the work of a single individual, the author makes it quite clear that Curtiz should be considered an author because of his "incredible ability to find the right style for the right picture" and because "He was a director of enormous experience and drive, determined to get his own way in the face of studio pressure".