#i cant rant and rave about this forever honestly but i literally had to throw my laptop on my couch and book it to get to work on time 😭

[sodrippy]

Could you tell us more about why you hate auteur theory? (I don't really like it either, but I also don't know a lot of 'film nerds' and I'm curious about your thoughts)

hi id love to!

(if anyones not familiar, auteur theory is a film theory from the 50s/60s that posits the director as the central creative force behind a film)

i think i hate it a little less in its original form, where the director often was actually taking on other roles, most prominently as a writer, but even personally editing or shooting their film in some cases, because then they really DO have more creative control overall. plus it was in part a reaction to the commercialisation of film in the west, so in terms of putting creative control back in the hands of the actual creatives behind a film rather than bending to what studios think will make them money, i can get behind auteur theory.

over time though, the term has become so watered down that now it just means the director is god and everyone else is a thoughtless little cog in their machine, which is so disrespectful and so ANNOYING. like, you cannot call the director on some billion dollar movie an auteur bc they dont really do jack fucking shit actually. id say lots of smaller films can still fit into this theory, where an independent director is the one whos come up with the story concept themselves and helped to write the screenplay, and is heavily involved in the editing process and so on, but the bigger a project gets (in my experience) the less true 'control' the director has.

personally, the way i view it is, if the director didn't come up with the story or didn't co-write the screenplay, then they are nothing to me they are just some guy they're not the driving creative force.

as someone who's involved in film myself, the main reason that i hate auteur theory is that its really just so disrespectful to film crews (on set and post) and moreover disrespectful and dismissive of filmmaking as an art form. film is inherently a collaborative art, and even if some people argue 'yeah but the director is the one telling everyone what to do and how to do it' thats such a simplistic take on it. some directors are very specific about what they want, yes, of course, but a lot of times a director will give a brief on what they want, and the relevant department will create the specifics, or they'll say 'right we can do that, but this might be much better' or whatever. filmmaking is a very fluid process as well, and things change all the time, and i think if you think that the director is in charge of it all youre very unfamiliar with how it works. it makes me really cranky when i see people talk about when things go wrong or look bad in films and they immediately blame the dop or (so so SO common) the post production departments, as if its a huge failure on their part. like ok if directors are kings, why dont you blame them for the bad shit too? or do you only think theyre in control when magic happens?

lastly, because i am running late for work now, the whole auteur aura tbh just makes excuses for sloppy work. i just worked on a project with a notoriously Auteur style director, and from what i heard about how he works, being on set is fucking hell. oftentimes when you trust in a director's 'creative vision' you sacrifice discipline and scheduling and lots of other organization that is so crucial to getting a job done on time and with high quality results, bc youre basically just working at the whim of one guy who's more concerned about realizing a singular vision than they are with the practicalities of making a film.