Auteur theory

[Michael Badzik]

Markus wrote something that caught my attention:

< Re:Japanese women filmmakers>

> I hope it gets you thinking outside of the rubric of auteur approaches
that
> exclude everything besides the feature film director.

Are you saying that the auteur theory itself excludes everything but the 
feature film director, or that some approaches considered "auteur" do? I 
ask because the auteur theory that was taught to me allowed that writers, 
producers and others might also be considered the author of a work 
(something that Andrew Sarris has been quite emphatic about), but I have 
heard people describe somewhat different theories.

And the auteur theory as I see it 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. It coexists alongside other film theories; it does not 
exclude them. If this is not the case, then any auteur theory becomes an 
ugly mess of inconsistencies.

So what am I getting at? Just that I have found the auteur theory to be a 
useful (if not universal) way of looking at film, and also that it does not
in 
any way minimize the interest or importance of the others involved in a 
film's creation. Which is how this believer in the auteur theory can be 
disappointed that discussion on this list is almost always about directors,

and rarely about actors, screenwriters, and other makers of films who 
may not be auteurs.

Anyone else?

Michael Badzik
mike at vena.com