Over 50 years ago the French film critics began to develop a film analyses element they called the auteur thory. It was primarily tied to the “French New Wave” of directors. In the United States film critic Andrew Sarris carried the torch and tried to expand upon the concept. In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director’s film reflects the director’s personal creative vision, as if they were the primary “auteur” (the French word for “author”). In spite of—and sometimes even because of—the production of the film as part of an industrial process, the auteur’s creative voice is distinct enough to shine through all kinds of studio interference and through the collective process. Pauline Kael would make fun of Sarris’s positions and insist that no such consistency existed. The debate continues today.
So consider the following as you analyze your films. What conclusions do you reach?
1. After viewing several films by a single director, what kinds of general observations can you make about his or her style? Which of the adjectives listed below describe his or her style?
a. intellectual and rational or emotional and sensual
b. calm and quiet or fast-paced and exciting
c. polished and smooth or rough and crude-cut
d. cool and objective or warm and subjective
e. ordinary and trite or fresh and original
f. tightly structured, direct, and concise or loosely structured and rambling
g. truthful and realistic or romantic and idealized
h. simple and straightforward or complex and indirect
i. grave, serious, tragic, and heavy or light, comical, and humorous
j. restrained and understated or exaggerated
k. optimistic and hopeful or bitter and cynical
l. logical and orderly or irrational and chaotic
2. What common thematic threads are reflected in the director’s choice of subject matter? How is this thematic similarity revealed in the nature of the conflicts the director deals with?
3. In the films you have seen, what consistencies do you find in the director’s treatment of space and time?
4. Is a consistent philosophical view of the nature of man and the universe found in all the films studied? If so, describe the director’s worldview.
5. How is the director’s style revealed by composition and lighting, philosophy of camera, camera movement, and methods of achieving three-dimensionality?
6. How does the director use special visual techniques (such as unusual camera angles, fast motion, sow motion, and distorting lenses) to interpret or comment on the action, and how do these techniques reflect overall style?
7. How is the director’s style reflected in the different aspects of the editing in the films, such as the rhythm and pacing of editorial cuts, the nature of transitions, montages, and other creative juxtapositions? How does the style of editing relate to other elements of the director’s visual style, such as the philosophy of camera or how the point of view is emphasized?
8. How consistent is the director in using and emphasizing setting? What kind of details of the natural setting does the director emphasize, and how do these details of the natural setting does the director emphasize, and how do these details relate to his or her overall style? Is there any similarity in the director’s approach to entirely different kinds of settings? How do the sets constructed especially for the film reflect the director’s taste?
9. In what ways are the director’s use of sound effects, dialogue, and music unique? How are these elements of style related to the image?
10. What consistencies can be seen in the director’s choice of actors and in the performances they give under his or her direction? How does the choice of actors and acting styles fit in with the style in other areas?
11. What consistencies do you find in the director’s narrative structure?
12. If the director seems to be constantly evolving instead of settling into a fixed style, what directions or tendencies do you see in that evolution? What stylistic elements can you find in all his or her films?
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.