With close reference to two or three films either studied on the course or of your own choice, assess the

strengths and weaknesses of auteurism as a critical approach. Please confirm the film titles and directors with the tutor before you begin to write your essay.

The question as to what makes a director an author of his films opposed to a mere technician has been consistently debated throughout the history of Cinema when it was first used as a medium for artistic creativity. The politique des auteurs emerged from France during the 1950s as an opposition not only to established French film criticism with its support for a quality cinema of serious social themes, but also to the untheorised committed political criticism of the left, which ignored the contribution of individuals to the process of film production (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 240). Also, the idea of the mise-enscene (the staging of the real world for the camera) was centralto make the distinction between those directors who simply directed (who had mastered the language of cinema) and those who were true auteurs, in the sense that they put forward a coherent world-view in their films and manifested a uniquely individual style (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 240). The idea of an artist as someone who resisted the forces of the market in the interest of artistic autonomy in opposition to commercial, socially conformist art (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 235), has been argued since the Renaissance. With this in mind, Scorsese can seemingly qualify as an author of his films if being considered one means the expression of certain intentions carried out by an individual person, who was an artist by virtue of his or her struggle against the industrial system of production to attain control

of that process of production in order to express his or her personal concerns (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 235). A prominent feature in Scorseses films is his variations in speed. Slomotion shots are accurately used to capture a particular moment, highlighting a certain emotion or detail in the shot. For example, in Raging Bull, there is the scene where Jake first sets his eyes on Vickie in the nightclub, emphasizing the intensity of Jakes attraction to her. Scorsese also uses this technique to great affect during the Marriage scene in Goodfella. A similar Result is achieved through his use of high-speed shots, giving a manic and hectic perspective. The shot in Raging Bull where Jake knocks down Sugar Ray Robinson - who almost flies over the ropes - emphasizes the power and velocity of the knockout blow. The emotional perspective achieved through the slowing and quickening of pace, adds to the visual narrative, where directors such as Guy Ritchie have taken heavily from. Scorseses use of Location shooting, long takes and intimate, shaky handheld camerawork characteristic of cin-vrit complements the naturalistic representation of a specific subculture to afford a documentary picturethis documentary representation is also stylistically heightened by a battery of anti-realistic devicesjump cuts, slow-motion, unmotivated camera

movement, and often intrusively annotative music (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 182). The idea of documentary style realism is one of the most striking signatures that Scorcese employs in his films; the attention to detail described in his words as the reality as I knew it. Sarris theory that auteurs try to put popular cinema on a level with art can help explain Scorseses merging of

realism with finesse. This particular use of camera techniques and editing, violent themes and provocative characters, married with the use of often raw dialogue, gives the appearance of a documentary film-making which creates an intimate and explicitly revealing atmosphere that strangely entices the audience to be a voyeur of the world depicted. Scorseses portrayal of his characters state of mind and feelings lies also in his understanding of his actors needs the choice of actors with similar cultural backgrounds as his characters and the insistence of the actors use of improvisation, all add to create scenes of uncanny truthfulness. Having mastered such a vast range of techniques, Scorsese creates feelings of isolation, desire and most prominently, anger in many of his films. Violence has been given particular attention, even creating a sub-category in its own right as being distinctly Scorsese, influencing the work of directors such as Quentin Tarantino. Here, we are propelled into the front seat of brutal fights and murders, highlighting all the grisly detail to shock the audience into submission. For example, in Casino we are shown the brutal killing of Tony as he is clubbed to death by a group of baseball-bat-wielding mobsters. This is after he watches his brother beaten to death before his very eyes. Or in Goodfellas, when Tommy breaks his gun after smashing it repeatedly against a Mafia bosses head, while Jimmy stamps on the helpless victim. Due to Scoseses obsessive attention to detail, this makes for rather disturbing viewing, but is none the less memorable. It is as if drama has moved on from the days of moving people with emotion through tragedy (e.g. Sophocles), to moving people through the sensationalisation of the explicit. The emotion felt whilst watching a tragedy has somehow transferred itself to

the shock effect of violence or abusive scenes (rape Irreversible), orchestrated on film in a frighteningly realistic way. The use of often shady characters leads onto the subject of Scorseses fascination with the anti-hero. Upon reading through Scorseses filmography, it is quite obvious he is obsessed with the idea of the anti-hero; from films such as Mean Streets to The Passions of Christ. This could be because it gives a different angle to the average protagonist or it could be that it ties in with Scorseses view on what is real, someone who is not necessarily good or bad, but has elements of both. The moral ambiguity of the characters depicted is a consistent theme for Scorsese, where the characters try to do the right thing, but are confronted with external forces or simply the limitations of their own characters. This should all identify Scorsese as a text book auteur yet there are many who would only regard him as mere technician, an metteurs en scene. In many peoples eyes, Alfred Hitchcock will always be classified as an auteur. His innovation of camera and editing techniques during a time when cinematic narrative was still primitive, added to his understanding of the complexities of the human mind, rightfully carves himself a place in the history books. Although one must acknowledge his massive influence on the film industry, it must also be noted that he also happened to be in the right place at the right time. The fact that not only cinema, but also the whole concept of visual narrative was relatively infantile, it allowed Hitchcock to take advantage of the basic techniques available at the time, and re-write the rule book . Today that is not as likely to happen to such a degree. Cinema has had time to evolve; there is much more competition, and most camera and editing

techniques have become common knowledge, making it much harder for directors to stand out with visual style alone. Even if someone like Tim Burton does create a distinctive visual style, there is still the question as to how much that vision belongs to him opposed to the D.O.P., set director, artistic director, etc. Then there are spectacular visual effects, like bullet-time seen in the Matrix. Like any new visual technique employed liberally, can just as quickly become a common gimmick . cinema only achieved the status of art cinema when a film or body of films could be seen as the expression of certain intentions carried out by an individual person, who was an artist by virtue of his struggle against the industrial system of production to attain control of that process of production in order to express his or her personal concerns. (Cook & Bernink, 1999: 235)

This would undeniably eject Alfred Hitchcock from his throne of the greatest auteur. So if someone as revered as Hitchcock cannot be considered an artist, how do we distinguish one in an industry that relies so heavily on the industrial systems mode of production? It is becoming more important as filmmakers to be able to distinguish their own ideas and beliefs through the initial creative process, through the writing process. Directors such as Pedro Almadvar and Quentin Tarantino, have made it their business not only to direct their films, but fundamentally, to write them, creating a vision that is uniquely theirs, not just through utilizing technically stylistic methods, but starting at the source, focusing on the quality of the content rather than relying on aesthetics alone. We all have our own

unique outlook on life - as a writer and director of a film, this should make itself relevant in his/her vision, automatically stamping his/her signature onto the film. This is what I think is the most essential ingredient to being an auteur; for one to be a true author of his films, should it not require that one be the source of inspiration depicted? This theory would inevitably categorize Hitchcock and Scorsese as metteurs-en-scene. What has distinguished directors such as Hitchcock and Scorsese from other filmmakers is a purely aesthetic quality. But it is increasingly difficult to recognize a consistent visual style that differentiates them from other directors, who subsequently incorporate these well-worn visual techniques into their own films. When we take away the prestige of historical context related to filmmakers in this cinematic pantheon and put these films naked side by side, it then starts to become problematic. The only true recognizable factor is that of a consistent theme with Hitchcock it is the psychological suspense thriller, Scorsese the often violent portrayal of the anti-hero. The stylistic choices complement the content of their regular themes, but if Hitchcock was to apply his techniques to, say, a romantic comedy, it is unlikely to be as effective.

there is nothing more common nowadays than an auteur. Auteur films (which create their auteur) are rarer stuff (Chion, 1995: 3)

Auteur theory seems like a common theoretical dialectic that starts to fall into a polemical rhetoric, a sign that the ground in which auteurism once stood strong and proud is delineating into a chaotic quagmire of indistinct intellectual

ramblings. Nowadays, producers such as Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer have as much of a distinctive creative voice as the directors that they employ, enough, at least, for the audience to recognize their stylistic signature to attribute it to a Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer product. But surely we dont regard them as auteurs of the films they produce, just as surely as we emit Tony Scott from the same distinguished club. Charlie Kauffman has fast become as influential, if not more so, than the directors of the screenplays he writes have. When it comes to a distinctive authorial voice, Kauffman wields considerable clout. So where does this leave us in an industry so full of self proclaimed egos? Where anyone in the film industry can quite convincingly, and arguably quite rightly, stamp their creative voices so prominently. The problem then points back to the hierarchy of the production process. Auteurism really does become the politique des auteur, where what is regarded as important in the creative process is no longer a matter of an individualistic struggle against the system, but a struggle within it. It seems that the original understanding in cinema production points back to the socialistic model of cinema as essentially a collaboration. Any distinctive voices, at its best, can only be considered marketing tools to reacquaint the audience to a similar product. Producers, directors, screenwriters, D.O.P.s, musical composers, etc., all drown one anothers voices with their own, stamping their authority on the films they associate themselves with even directors such as Tarrentino presents films, as to lend the weight of their own individual tastes to the process. Given that auteur theory is still young and progressing, it is difficult for me to give a clear conclusion, as it is evident that this has become more of a

political debate rather than a basis for examination of a theoretical model. I dont believe that one can make such a judgement purely through observing aesthetic style, and out of the 30 films he directed, Scorsese was only involved in writing 7. But considering that both Hitchcock and Scorsese had refrained from making common films, adding an ingenuity (albeit, a technical one) to cinema as a whole, this should at the very least be enough to distinguish Hitchcock and Scorsese from the hoards of mass-producing imitators. And that always helps at the box-office.

References
Cook, Pam and Bernink, Mieke (1999) The Cinema Book. London: BFI Publishing Chion, Michael (1995) David Lynch. Trans. Robert Julian, London: BFI Publishing