Presentation-Film Theory

From MediaStudies

Critical Studies Presenters:

Caitlin Daley

Steve Mears

Susana Lopez

Contents 1 Overview 2 Preparation 3 Discussion Questions 4 Sign Up

Overview

Key to Reserva

We will consider the theory and history behind auteur analysis - looking at films as reflections of their director's vision. This approach has been crucial to many important movements of the last half-century, including the French New Wave and the New Hollywood of the 1960s-70s. Considering the personalities that shape movies can help subvert the common (and often valid) tendency toward regarding them as commodities. We will discuss the practice itself in relation to past auteurs (Hitchcock, etc), and look at several directors of today whose works represent a singular perspective (Almodovar, for one). Clips will be shown.

Hitchcock

Almodovar

Preparation

Here's a translation of the article that essentially launched the auteurist movement, "A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema" by Francois Truffaut.

http://soma.sbcc.edu/users/davega/FILMST_101/FILMST_101_FILM_MOVEMENTS/FrenchNewWave/A_certain_tendency_traffaut1954_cashiers.pdf

And this site provides some useful context.

http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=2272

Here are a few more sites about auteur theory. They give simple and quick definitions:

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/Screen/Auteur%20Theory.htm

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/auteur-theory/truffaut's-theory.html

Discussion Questions

• How is auteurism a useful mode of appreciating films, and what (or who) gets marginalized in the process?
  • Examples: the writers, cinematographers, and stars with dominant personalities
• "There are no good and bad movies. Only good and bad directors." Agree or disagree? Can you think of examples of great films made by less-than-great directors, or films whose greatness derives from other factors altogether?
  • Example: few people remember who directed Casablanca - could that be more of a star vehicle/writers' piece?
    
• At the time Truffaut was writing, the term "auteur" referred to directors whose work was not only distinctive but also superior. Now it applies to anyone whose films are identifiable - even if they're also mindless and meritless (e.g. Michael Bay's). Is this an extension of the theory or a perversion? Should the term be reserved for "good" directors only?
  
• One principle of auteurism is that a director's body of work, regarded as a whole, is more important to consider than any individual film made by them. Is this valid? If so, can one become an auteur without first producing an extensive array of movies (e.g. Is Spike Jonze an auteur, having only released two feature films?) And then, how do we assess directors' atypical works (like a Hitchcock romantic comedy, or Scorsese's bio of the Dalai Lama)?
  
• How likely (or unlikely) is it to become an auteur in such a collaborative industry as film? Is it more or less likely than it was in 1954?
  
• What makes someone an auteur?
  
• Who do you see as today's auteurs, and why?
  

Sign Up

Add your name below to sign up for this session.
(maximum 18 students; if 18 have already selected, please choose another session)

Nancy Planitzer

Irene Choe

Payton Watkins

Olivia Sajjadieh

Mara Freedman

Samantha Sias

Devin Rapson

Jaime Swarthout

Kendall Fleisher

Nikki Morin

Courtney Peterson