Auteurism changed the face of film criticism by recognizing directors as “authors”. It created a new standard of evaluation that emphasized the director’s individuality and artistry.
In the 1950s, a new critical theory called auteurism emerged in French film criticism. Auteurism refers to the view of a director as an “author” rather than just a director, and equates the director with the work. At the time of the theory’s emergence, there was a widespread practice in France of adapting famous literary works into movies without much adaptation, relying on lavish costumes, sets, and popular theater actors. Auteurism was advocated as a reaction to the literary and theatrical colors that were prevalent in French cinema. It reflected a desire for films to be recognized as independent works of art, with the director’s artistic expression, rather than just a medium for storytelling.
Auteurism advocates for works that consistently project the director’s personal cinematic universe and original style, rather than clichés. The creativity and individuality of a director is manifested in consistent stylistic features, such as a worldview or thematic consciousness that runs through his or her work, a narrative style that expresses it, and certain situations, settings, or expressive techniques that recur insistently. It is based on the belief that a director can build his or her own cinematic language and communicate with the audience through it.
Auteurist criticism has had an important impact on the world of film criticism, most notably through the rediscovery of Hollywood cinema. In Hollywood, films were produced in a standardized and decentralized way to increase the efficiency of the production staff, similar to the Ford system, which symbolizes the early American mass production technology. As a result, the producer, who was in charge of finances and administration, became involved in the director’s work process, while the director’s role was to implement the producer’s ideas on screen. This was done in order to produce films of a certain quality while minimizing the instability of the box office, which can be caused by variables such as the unquantifiable talents of the creators and the fickle tastes of the audience. Within this system, directors were often restricted in their creative freedom, but the auteurists saw in this the potential for originality.
Auteurist critics, however, believed that even in commercial films produced under the most industrialized conditions of Hollywood, a director’s unique mark could be found. Auteurist critics noted instances in which the restrictive production conditions actually brought out the director’s sense of challenge and creativity. As a result, B-movies and their directors were also beneficiaries. They reevaluated directors who, despite commercial constraints, had managed to incorporate their own unique style and thematic consciousness into their work. This allowed audiences and critics to discover the director’s personal narrative and artistic intentions in their films.
The most prominent Hollywood director to be rehabilitated by auteurist critics is Hitchcock, a master of the thriller genre. Hitchcock was recognized as a director who maintained a consistent thematic consciousness and style even within the constraints of the production system and genre. Hitchcock utilized his own narrative schema of misleading the audience and then revealing the truth at the last minute for a shocking twist. He also often used the “McGuffin” technique of misleading the audience as a dramatic device to create his own narrative conventions: he would use a particular prop as a McGuffin, making it appear to be a definitive clue, only to have it turn out to be false, leaving the audience baffled. This technique became a trademark of Hitchcock’s films and put him in a league of his own.
The influence of auteurism on the reappraisal of Hollywood cinema continues to this day. For example, auteurism helped define what constitutes a “good” movie or a “great” director, and it’s still used in film education today. Auteurism also gave new directors the courage to develop their own cinematic language and use it to realize their artistic vision. This has paved the way for a wide range of cinematic experimentation and innovation to continue in modern cinema. Furthermore, as the filmmaking landscape has become more diverse due to advances in digital technology, auteurism has been reimagined in new forms and remains as relevant as ever.
