Auteur theory

[Michael Badzik]

Aaron wrote:

>Actually, this is not quite right.  I taught the auteur theory recently, 
>using Truffaut's preface to the Hitchcock interview book as an example, 
>and quite clearly in Truffaut's mind, the auteurist perspective is an 
>evaluative mode.

Yes, it is not right. Some careless editing on my part made my sentence 
easy to misread, so let me change it back to the way it was:

>>And the auteur theory that I accept is only a tool for analyzing those  
>>films which might be considered the works of auteurs; it implies no 
>>particular measure of goodness to a work (Ed Wood was an auteur after 
>>all), only that there may be a degree of one person's outlook, theories, 
>>quirks, or whatever in their oeuvre.

And now, getting back to Japanese films, I would like to ask the following 
question. The French critics were activists spearheading a revolution in 
filmmaking, and had a strong influence on filmmakers in other countries 
as well - more so then the other auteur theory critics who I believe 
(correct me if I am wrong) mostly influenced other critics. What degree 
of influence did they have on Japanese films, in a country that already 
seemed to have post-war revolutions going on in film and all of its 
other popular arts?

And thank you, Aaron, for taking the time to write that nice description 
of the roots of auteurism in film.

Michael Badzik
mike at vena.com