Peter_Wollen_on_Auteur_Theory

Prévia do material em texto

Writer’s​ ​statement 
 
In​ ​this​ ​assignment,​ ​my​ ​objective​ ​was​ ​to​ ​accurately​ ​portray​ ​the​ ​views​ ​that​ ​Peter​ ​Wollen 
expresses​ ​in​ ​his​ ​article,​ ​in​ ​my​ ​own​ ​words.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​important​ ​to​ ​me​ ​to​ ​read​ ​the​ ​article​ ​and​ ​have 
my​ ​summary​ ​go​ ​hand​ ​in​ ​hand​ ​with​ ​the​ ​progression​ ​of​ ​his​ ​piece.​ ​I​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​make​ ​sure​ ​that​ ​I 
had​ ​summarized​ ​the​ ​central​ ​points​ ​and​ ​themes​ ​included​ ​in​ ​his​ ​paragraphs,​ ​but​ ​successfully​ ​be 
able​ ​to​ ​reproduce​ ​those​ ​same​ ​ideas​ ​with​ ​my​ ​own​ ​voice. 
 
There​ ​were​ ​times​ ​where​ ​the​ ​language​ ​seemed​ ​complex​ ​and​ ​not​ ​even​ ​looking​ ​it​ ​up​ ​would​ ​help, 
but​ ​I​ ​was​ ​surprised,​ ​how​ ​on​ ​my​ ​second​ ​read,​ ​how​ ​much​ ​I​ ​was​ ​just​ ​able​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​and 
continue​ ​reading​ ​with.​ ​Sometimes​ ​there​ ​were​ ​phrases​ ​used​ ​that​ ​really​ ​confused​ ​that​ ​I​ ​just​ ​had 
to​ ​move​ ​on​ ​from​ ​with​ ​my​ ​own​ ​interpretation​ ​(e.g.​ ​“consigned​ ​to​ ​oblivion”).​ ​Wollen​ ​wasn’t​ ​as 
hard​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​as​ ​I​ ​was​ ​expecting​ ​from​ ​someone​ ​discussing​ ​auteur​ ​theory.​ ​While​ ​trying 
to​ ​rethink​ ​things​ ​he​ ​had​ ​written,​ ​into​ ​my​ ​own​ ​words,​ ​I​ ​didn’t​ ​find​ ​too​ ​much​ ​difficulty. 
Wollen’s​ ​style​ ​was​ ​sophisticated​ ​yet​ ​concise,​ ​this​ ​really​ ​helped​ ​in​ ​being​ ​able​ ​to​ ​work​ ​at​ ​a 
faster​ ​pace. 
I​ ​feel​ ​as​ ​if​ ​I​ ​succeeded​ ​in​ ​representing​ ​Wollen’s​ ​views​ ​in​ ​a​ ​shorter,​ ​concise​ ​essay​ ​that 
includes​ ​all​ ​of​ ​his​ ​key​ ​points.​ ​There​ ​were​ ​areas​ ​that​ ​I​ ​did​ ​skip​ ​over,​ ​as​ ​I​ ​felt​ ​he​ ​was​ ​dwelling 
on​ ​one​ ​point​ ​too​ ​long.​ ​On​ ​my​ ​third​ ​read,​ ​I​ ​underlined​ ​the​ ​key​ ​points​ ​in​ ​my​ ​opinion,​ ​and​ ​that 
allowed​ ​for​ ​me​ ​to​ ​travel​ ​through​ ​to​ ​article​ ​easier,​ ​knowing​ ​when​ ​I​ ​could​ ​probably​ ​move​ ​on​ ​to 
the​ ​next​ ​point​ ​was​ ​a​ ​good​ ​help. 
 
My​ ​first​ ​draft​ ​was​ ​too​ ​focused​ ​on​ ​earlier​ ​themes​ ​in​ ​the​ ​article,​ ​which​ ​led​ ​me​ ​to​ ​rush​ ​the​ ​latter 
key​ ​points​ ​which​ ​turned​ ​out​ ​to​ ​be​ ​more​ ​important,​ ​in​ ​my​ ​opinion.​ ​The​ ​second​ ​read​ ​of​ ​the 
article​ ​was​ ​beneficial​ ​for​ ​the​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​ideas,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​third​ ​read​ ​was​ ​much​ ​more 
focused​ ​and​ ​objective​ ​in​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​planning​ ​out​ ​my​ ​essay.​ ​The​ ​second​ ​draft​ ​only​ ​had​ ​to​ ​be 
restructured​ ​a​ ​little​ ​bit​ ​before​ ​becoming​ ​the​ ​final​ ​draft.​ ​Watching​ ​a​ ​few​ ​videos​ ​on​ ​auteur 
theory​ ​greatly​ ​helped​ ​me​ ​in​ ​this​ ​assignment.​ ​They​ ​boosted​ ​and​ ​refreshed​ ​my​ ​memory​ ​on​ ​the 
theory​ ​before​ ​diving​ ​straight​ ​into​ ​a​ ​complex​ ​review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​theory.​ ​Prior​ ​to​ ​this​ ​I​ ​didn’t​ ​even 
like​ ​the​ ​theory​ ​that​ ​much,​ ​but​ ​watching​ ​the​ ​videos​ ​then​ ​going​ ​into​ ​this,​ ​made​ ​me​ ​actually 
think​ ​about​ ​auteur​ ​theory​ ​differently,​ ​then​ ​I​ ​found​ ​myself​ ​being​ ​more​ ​enthusiastic​ ​about 
completing​ ​the​ ​essay.​ ​Something​ ​I​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​focus​ ​on​ ​was​ ​structuring​ ​my​ ​summary​ ​in​ ​the 
same​ ​style​ ​as​ ​Wollen.​ ​I​ ​felt​ ​it​ ​to​ ​b​ ​the​ ​best​ ​way​ ​to​ ​summarize,​ ​by​ ​using​ ​the​ ​same​ ​structure.​ ​I 
definitely​ ​didn’t​ ​want​ ​to​ ​copy​ ​his​ ​daunting,​ ​long​ ​paragraphs,​ ​but​ ​overall​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​format. 
 
The​ ​best​ ​thing​ ​I​ ​had​ ​for​ ​this​ ​was​ ​definitely​ ​the​ ​thesaurus,​ ​nothing​ ​helped​ ​more.​ ​It​ ​was 
extremely​ ​helpful​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​book​ ​or​ ​website,​ ​full​ ​of​ ​synonyms,​ ​it​ ​really​ ​sped​ ​everything​ ​up. 
Not​ ​only​ ​was​ ​it​ ​handy​ ​using​ ​it​ ​for​ ​the​ ​assignment​ ​but​ ​it​ ​really​ ​boosts​ ​your​ ​own​ ​personal 
knowledge​ ​of​ ​vocabulary,​ ​and​ ​helps​ ​you​ ​differentiate​ ​more. 
 
 
 
 
Peter​ ​Wollen​ ​on​ ​Auteur​ ​Theory 
 
Peter​ ​Wollen​ ​begins​ ​by​ ​quoting​ ​Andrew​ ​Sarris​ ​on​ ​auteur​ ​theory.​ ​He​ ​describes​ ​how​ ​it​ ​came 
about​ ​from​ ​a​ ​group​ ​of​ ​critics​ ​who​ ​all​ ​wrote​ ​for​​ ​Cahiers​ ​du​ ​Cinéma.​ ​​A​ ​big​ ​factor​ ​in​ ​the 
reasons​ ​for​ ​the​ ​theory’s​ ​existence​ ​was​ ​France’s​ ​restriction​ ​from​ ​American​ ​film.​ ​Films​ ​by 
authors,​ ​that​ ​had​ ​been​ ​put​ ​aside​ ​and​ ​forgotten,​ ​were​ ​revitalized​ ​after​ ​the​ ​liberation​ ​of​ ​France. 
Although​ ​auteur​ ​theory​ ​was​ ​adopted​ ​by​ ​many,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​developed​ ​without​ ​any​ ​obvious 
principle​ ​of​ ​organization.​ ​This​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​the​ ​theory​ ​being​ ​applied​ ​very​ ​broadly​ ​while 
remaining​ ​within​ ​the​ ​basic​ ​structure​ ​of​ ​ideas,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​misconceptions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​theory​ ​primarily 
developed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States​ ​and​ ​Britain.​ ​The​ ​auteur​ ​theory​ ​isn’t​ ​restricted​ ​to​ ​praising 
directors​ ​as​ ​the​ ​leading​ ​author​ ​of​ ​a​ ​film.​ ​It​ ​uncovers​ ​authors​ ​what​ ​might​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​seen 
previously. 
 
Due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​ambiguity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​original​ ​theory,​ ​two​ ​types​ ​of​ ​critics​ ​developed​ ​with​ ​differing 
views​ ​on​ ​auteur​ ​theory.​ ​There​ ​are​ ​those​ ​who​ ​believe​ ​in​ ​the​ ​theory​ ​being​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​revealing 
the​ ​central​ ​structure​ ​of​ ​film,​ ​and​ ​those​ ​who​ ​believed​ ​in​ ​it​ ​pushing​ ​technique​ ​and​ ​​mise​ ​en 
scène.​ ​​Wollen​ ​discusses​ ​many​ ​ideas​ ​that​ ​favor​ ​the​ ​theory​ ​deciphering​ ​meaning​ ​and​ ​motifs. 
All​ ​directors​ ​may​ ​have​ ​their​ ​own​ ​meanings​ ​that​ ​they​ ​apply​ ​to​ ​their​ ​films,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​is​ ​that,​ ​that 
sets​ ​apart​ ​one​ ​director​ ​from​ ​another.​ ​Nowell​ ​Smith​ ​describes​ ​this​ ​“structural​ ​approach”​ ​that​ ​is 
fundamental​ ​for​ ​a​ ​critic.​ ​Ford,​ ​being​ ​an​ ​American​ ​director,​ ​finds​ ​great​ ​interest​ ​in​ ​placing​ ​his 
characters​ ​within​ ​American​ ​history.​ ​He​ ​likes​ ​to​ ​transport​ ​people​ ​to​ ​places​ ​unknown.​ ​Ford​ ​is 
interested​ ​in​ ​the​ ​mass​ ​consciousness,​ ​yet​ ​this​ ​directly​ ​contrasts​ ​the​ ​views​ ​of​ ​Boetticher,​ ​where 
he​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​discover​ ​the​ ​individual​ ​and​ ​how​ ​a​ ​single​ ​person​ ​deals​ ​with​ ​something.​ ​Hawks, 
Ford,​ ​Boetticher​ ​and​ ​other​ ​auteurs​ ​have​ ​their​ ​recurring​ ​themes​ ​and​ ​deeper​ ​meanings​ ​but​ ​there 
is​ ​also​ ​considered​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​danger​ ​in​ ​critiquing​ ​film​ ​in​ ​comparison​ ​with​ ​other​ ​films​ ​by​ ​the 
same​ ​author. 
 
Lévi-Strauss​ ​notes​ ​that​ ​if​ ​everything​ ​is​ ​just​ ​compared​ ​and​ ​contrasted​ ​with​ ​other​ ​bodies​ ​of 
work,​ ​then​ ​everything​ ​will​ ​become​ ​a​ ​single​ ​body,​ ​not​ ​unique.​ ​Film​ ​can​ ​be​ ​studied​ ​as​ ​a​ ​single 
entity​ ​and​ ​not​ ​as​ ​a​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​a​ ​bigger​ ​puzzle.​ ​By​ ​this,​ ​Strauss​ ​alludes​ ​that​ ​a​ ​text​ ​shouldn’t​ ​be 
studied​ ​within​ ​the​ ​collection​ ​of​ ​works,​ ​but​ ​as​ ​a​ ​solo​ ​piece​ ​that​ ​has​ ​it’s​ ​own​ ​unique​ ​quirks. 
Howard​ ​Hawk’s​ ​dramas,​ ​by​ ​themselves,​ ​appear​ ​to​ ​be​ ​dull​ ​and​ ​not​ ​impressive,​ ​but​ ​it’s​ ​the 
context​ ​and​ ​the​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​director’s​ ​other​ ​works​ ​that​ ​build​ ​the​ ​atmosphere​ ​and​ ​quality 
of​ ​the​ ​drama.​ ​​ ​Other​ ​directors​ ​works​ ​aren’t​ ​broken​ ​down​ ​so​ ​simply​ ​into​ ​drama​ ​and​ ​adventure. 
Where​ ​the​ ​singular​ ​critique​ ​becomes​ ​more​ ​crucial​ ​is​ ​in​ ​that​ ​of​ ​the​ ​protagonist.​ ​Strauss​ ​breaks 
down​ ​the​ ​protagonists​ ​of​ ​fairy​ ​tales​ ​into​ ​opposites;​ ​“prince​ ​and​ ​goose-girl”.​ ​While​ ​a​ ​film​ ​will 
most​ ​likely​ ​end​ ​up​ ​being​ ​more​ ​complex​ ​than​ ​a​ ​fairy​ ​tale’s​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​right​ ​and​ ​wrong,​ ​they​ ​can 
still​ ​be​ ​boiled​ ​down. 
 
The​ ​auteur​ ​theory​ ​does​ ​show​ ​us​ ​an​ ​aggregate​ ​of​ ​meaning​ ​in​ ​films.​ ​Ford​ ​masters​ ​the​ ​opposites 
within​ ​his​ ​films​ ​with​ ​antinomy​ ​(Each​ ​opposition​ ​has​ ​reason,​ ​creating​ ​a​ ​paradox).​​Wyatt​ ​Earp 
from​ ​​My​ ​Darling​ ​Clementine​ ​​is​ ​a​ ​perfect​ ​example​ ​of​ ​the​ ​antinomy,​ ​Wyatt’s​ ​transition​ ​from 
being​ ​everything​ ​he​ ​is​ ​to​ ​everything​ ​he​ ​isn’t.​ ​Yet​ ​Edwards​ ​from​ ​​The​ ​Searchers​ ​​is​ ​more​ ​of​ ​a 
complex​ ​character.​ ​While​ ​he​ ​is​ ​a​ ​European,​ ​the​ ​opposite​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Indian,​ ​he​ ​mirrors​ ​his​ ​enemy 
in​ ​who​ ​he​ ​is,​ ​without​ ​their​ ​opposite.​ ​His​ ​antinomy​ ​with,​ ​the​ ​native​ ​american,​ ​Scar​ ​leaves​ ​him 
a​ ​tragic​ ​hero,​ ​still​ ​an​ ​outlaw,​ ​still​ ​revenge​ ​driven.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​these​ ​constant​ ​differences​ ​and 
antinomies​ ​in​ ​all​ ​of​ ​Ford’s​ ​protagonists​ ​that​ ​make​ ​him​ ​a​ ​truly​ ​talented​ ​Director​ ​and​ ​not​ ​just​ ​a 
great​ ​auteur. 
Wollen​ ​returns​ ​to​ ​Nowell-Smith​ ​to​ ​describe​ ​“lesser​ ​auteurs”​ ​as​ ​those​ ​who​ ​keep​ ​their​ ​themes 
and​ ​have​ ​them​ ​recur​ ​throughout​ ​their​ ​films.​ ​Great​ ​directors,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Ford,​ ​keep​ ​uniformity 
between​ ​works,​ ​while​ ​also​ ​creating​ ​a​ ​unique​ ​singular​ ​film,​ ​that​ ​can​ ​stand​ ​on​ ​it’s​ ​own. 
 
The​ ​director​ ​is​ ​not​ ​the​ ​sole​ ​controller​ ​of​ ​a​ ​film’s​ ​quality​ ​however,​ ​and​ ​critics​ ​must​ ​then 
decipher.​ ​A​ ​film​ ​is​ ​made​ ​by​ ​many​ ​people,​ ​the​ ​director​ ​of​ ​which​ ​“carries​ ​the​ ​most​ ​weight”. 
While​ ​this​ ​view​ ​may​ ​be​ ​not​ ​in​ ​line​ ​with​ ​auteur​ ​theory,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​acknowledge.​ ​Auteur 
theory​ ​seeks​ ​out​ ​to​ ​view​ ​a​ ​collection​ ​of​ ​a​ ​director’s​ ​work,​ ​and​ ​to​ ​evaluate​ ​the​ ​structure. 
Anything​ ​that​ ​auteur​ ​theory​ ​doesn’t​ ​set​ ​to​ ​analyse​ ​is​ ​considered​ ​insignificant.​ ​The​ ​other 
qualities​ ​to​ ​a​ ​film​ ​are​ ​no​ ​doubt​ ​important​ ​but​ ​they​ ​must​ ​serve​ ​the​ ​greater​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​the​ ​film. 
Wollen​ ​uses​ ​Strauss​ ​to​ ​convey​ ​that​ ​first,​ ​the​ ​story​ ​must​ ​be​ ​good,​ ​without​ ​style.​ ​Strauss​ ​refers 
to​ ​myths​ ​being​ ​iconic​ ​without​ ​technique​ ​or​ ​phrasing.​ ​It’s​ ​substance​ ​is​ ​there​ ​and​ ​style​ ​can​ ​only 
build​ ​on​ ​top​ ​of​ ​that.​ ​The​ ​director​ ​is​ ​shown​ ​to​ ​be​ ​more​ ​than​ ​just​ ​a​ ​crew​ ​member​ ​but​ ​as​ ​a 
composer​ ​of​ ​the​ ​symphony.​ ​The​ ​“noise”,​ ​as​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​by​ ​Wollen,​ ​is​ ​the​ ​other​ ​parts​ ​of​ ​the 
crew​ ​making​ ​themselves​ ​more​ ​integrated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​film.​ ​When​ ​the​ ​noise​ ​occurs​ ​it​ ​is​ ​more​ ​likely 
for​ ​critics​ ​to​ ​disregard​ ​the​ ​film,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​is​ ​only​ ​in​ ​the​ ​moment​ ​can​ ​it​ ​be​ ​judged.​ ​It​ ​lacks​ ​to 
resemble​ ​the​ ​directors​ ​structure.​ ​The​ ​director​ ​does​ ​not​ ​simply​ ​shoot​ ​what​ ​has​ ​already​ ​been 
written​ ​to​ ​be​ ​shot,​ ​he​ ​or​ ​she​ ​uses​ ​the​ ​pretext​ ​as​ ​an​ ​incitement​ ​to​ ​create​ ​something​ ​new.​ ​Not 
disregarding​ ​the​ ​source,​ ​but​ ​using​ ​it​ ​to​ ​make​ ​something​ ​alternative,​ ​that​ ​serves​ ​the​ ​film’s 
motifs​ ​and​ ​themes​ ​in​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​sense,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​auteur. 
 
Wollen​ ​wishes​ ​to​ ​detach​ ​from​ ​the​ ​perception​ ​of​ ​auteur​ ​theory​ ​being​ ​seen​ ​as​ ​a​ ​“cult​ ​of 
personalities”.​ ​Wollen​ ​sees​ ​that​ ​theory​ ​is​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​way​ ​to​ ​view​ ​cinema​ ​as​ ​an​ ​“art”,​ ​not​ ​in​ ​the 
classic​ ​view​ ​of​ ​art​ ​cinema,​ ​but​ ​in​ ​that​ ​film,​ ​in​ ​itself,​ ​is​ ​a​ ​creative​ ​outlet​ ​to​ ​express​ ​one's​ ​ideas. 
But​ ​due​ ​to​ ​distractions​ ​of​ ​coordination​ ​on​ ​set,​ ​the​ ​director​ ​normally​ ​doesn’t​ ​intend​ ​or​ ​even 
realize​ ​the​ ​structure​ ​he’s​ ​adding.​ ​Auteur​ ​theory​ ​is​ ​more​ ​about​ ​finding​ ​the​ ​framework​ ​that​ ​is 
unique​ ​to​ ​the​ ​auteur​ ​within​ ​his​ ​work.​ ​When​ ​an​ ​artist​ ​paints,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​relationship,​ ​yet​ ​a 
director​ ​has​ ​less​ ​of​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​connection​ ​to​ ​his​ ​work.​ ​Auteur​ ​theory​ ​is​ ​finding​ ​that​ ​connection 
and​ ​retracing​ ​it​ ​to​ ​the​ ​author.​ ​Wollen​ ​describes​ ​this​ ​as​ ​an​ ​“unconscious​ ​catalyst”.