The Limits of the Auteur Theory

Anyone who has dipped their toe in the waters of film history and criticism is familiar with the auteur theory. The idea that, despite a movie requiring dozens if not hundreds of people to create, that one person can be the author of a film and that their unique, personal voice can come through in the finished product. Typically, that person is the director, and the vast majority of people are now aware of the role a director plays in creating the carefully-constructed experiences that are movies. However, the basics of this idea can sometimes be misunderstood and I recently came upon two articles that stretched the bounds of the theory too far. 

First, here's a quote from Jim Emerson of Scanners that mimics my thoughts on the basics of the theory:

"...the so-called auteur theory was hardly a formal theory at all. It wasn't an absolutist dogma (or didn't have to be), but was more like a general rule of thumb, a working principle. And it never posited that the auteur must always be the director. It could be the producer, the writer, an actor (nobody ever tried to argue that "Gone With the Wind" was A Victor Fleming Film), and it was born out of an appreciation for the personal artistic signatures of Hollywood filmmakers laboring within the studio-factory system, when virtually everyone working on a picture was under contract (from the writers to the directors to the technicians and cast) and was basically assigned to work on one project after another."

Emerson's third point is important. The auteur label usually gets slapped on to the director, but it is entirely possible, and in sync with the theory, for someone else working behind the scenes to be the guiding voice. I'll add that the auteur status of a film has nothing to do with its quality. Just because a distinct personality marks a film doesn't mean it's good or bad, and plenty of great films with strong visions have been made by journeyman directors. It's helpful when discussing a director's body of work if they have pet themes or a distinct style to link everything together, but that desire can result in overrating a mediocre movie from an established director or dismissing a good movie lacking a clear hand. 

The first article that drew my interest came courtesy of Noel Murray from The Dissolve:

"I can’t argue that the same is true for Reitman, because I haven’t seen Men, Women & Children yet, but you folks may have just offered a useful defense of the film. If its attitude toward humanity—and one half of humanity in particular—has been affected by Reitman’s own issues, then even if it’s a shitty movie, doesn’t it at least offer some insight into its creator?"

It's true that Men, Women, and Children may offer insight into Reitman's psyche, but that doesn't automatically make the film interesting. It's the ideas within the film and how those ideas are communicated that's important. If Men, Women, and Children only offers up clichéd thoughts on the state of the world and does so through sloppy execution, then it doesn't matter what it reveals about Reitman. 

Of course, Murray goes on to say as much:

"Bear in mind that even if Reitman and/or Baumbach’s personal circumstances are tainting their work, that doesn’t automatically make the films better (or worse)."

The second article was a discussion Anne Helen Petersen was having on Buzzfeed:

"And he uses silence so well! And sound design! Soderbergh is one of the few directors for whom I’ll tolerate the “auteur” label, in part because he not only directs most of the time, but also serves as the director of photography (under a pseudonym) and often contributes to the screenplay as well (although less so in recent years)."

This was the statement that really confused me. The auteur theory doesn't mean that one person did all the work on a film. The theory came about during the 50's when the Cahiers du Cinema critics (many of whom would go on to become the leading directors of the French New Wave) noticed that, despite working in the rigid studio system of Hollywood, directors like Nicholas Ray, Alfred Hitchcock, and Howard Hawks all had distinct stylistic touches and thematic concerns that were evident in the majority of their films. Nowhere does the theory say a director needs to be involved in multiple aspects of film production for their voice to get across.