There are Writers, there are Directors and there are Auteurs. The Writer’s basic function is to create a compelling story and present it in a bullet proof format. Experience has taught me that many writers live in their own world and lack the necessary interpersonal skills to direct a film; therefore, we have Directors. Directors can be broadly divided into two camps: those who follow the script precisely and those who creatively interpret the script and allow the talent a little more freedom. Writers who are control freaks have a hard time working with them (and in return.) Some Director’s films become so distinctive that the Director is perceived as the film’s creator; this too ticks off some Writers. The Auteurs are the hyphenated Writer-Director types. These are the people who possess the creativity to develop a compelling story and the necessary technical knowledge and personal skill set that it takes to put the story up on the screen. Looking at the present filmmaking trends, I think it’s these Auteurs who will become the filmmaker royalty in the future. Comments?
Screenwriting : Writers, Directors and Auteurs by Doug Nelson
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
I'm just learning the craft, drifting away from novel/short story prose. Does this mean I'm going to have to learn ANOTHER craft? I'm still learning to write loglines... good grief. Okay, maybe I've written a couple of lines of dialogue, too. Daunting future.
I think there will always be great directors who don't write among the "filmmaker royalty", and especially the big-budget directors who do some epic work in the special-effects films. At the same time, the low-budget writer-directors who utilize out-of-the-box filmmaking software and can shoot a solid movie that doesn't require dozens of post-people behind the scenes certainly helps those auteurs rise to a different type of royalty rank, without a doubt. I thnk anyone who can write the script; shoot it; get the most out of the actors and other crew members; and can even impart a personal look on a film should get a lot more prestige than anyone else. I don't really follow too many of the lower-budget writer-directors to know who is doing that. But at least people like the Cohen brothers, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Lena Dunham, Mia Hanse, Nicholas Refn, PT Anderson, Lena Dunham, Edgar Wright, and Lars Von Trier (to name a few) who are mostly writer-directors are making some distinctive-looking films on not-so-small budgets. No budget, small budget and not-so-small-budget - viva la auteur!
Doug Nelson, I very much agree with what you are saying here. I am a undergraduate student in the UK writing a theses on film authorship, with main focus on auteurism. What seems to be the case is that auteurism ( introduced in the states in the 60s) was harshly criticised for being a over- romanticised notion of French Film makers, which had no place in mainstream Hollywood. However the Cult genre seems to be the blindspot in time where auteurs were given the opportunity rise; because the cult genre you see, is very reliant on an audience that goes against the mainstream norm for its validation and survival. Why? Roland Barthes gives us the answer for that: Text can be divided into two categories : Texts of Pleasure and texts of bliss.. A text of pleasure is a text that is consumed for fun or entertainment, whilst a text of bliss is a text that might not always entertain; it might be aesthetically unpleasing, shocking, even boring at times, but its main purpose is to unhinge something interior in the viewers perception. Encourage the viewers to set their ideologies and beliefs aside for a small period of time, and challenges them. Texts of pleasure in short go hand in hand with culture, whilst texts of Bliss do not. Mainstream hollywood owes all its success to its films with texts of pleasure. Cult audiences, on the other hand relish in the new release of a film that goes against the norm, and adore the authors of these pieces; the auteurs.. therefore giving true validation to the term Cult - Auteur. (And what i think is that cult - auteurs are modernised philosophers, and their films are their modernised soap box) Today, although Cult always seemed to be the underdog of film theory, and one of the main definitions of cult is its objection to go with the mainstream, there is a paradox: Due to the very distopian setting we are currently undergoing in our society. Enviromental Issues, Economical Issues, Quarter Life Crisis.. basically a total collapse of everything that previous generations took for granted, is urging us now, more than ever, to seek new and alternative ways of seeing the world we live in. That is why, through the liking of Nolan or Aronofsky, we see a very interesting pattern: Cult authors are turning mainstream, because mainstream audiences are turning cult in an attempt to shake off the distopian feeling surrounding them. The stories that we tell are so subjective that they can be irrational, can be romanticised, or have nothing to do with the facts. But in a world of conservation reliance those stories have real consequences, because how we feel about an auteur affects his survival more than critical acclaim. Story telling matters now, emotion matters, our imagination has become a influential force.
Sophia You’ve got a pretty good handle on it but I think you’re overplaying the Cult Film a bit. I’m sure in your research that you’ve come across the works of Jacques Tati’s (my personal alter ego) films. They were not initially well received in the US but a number of them did well in the Art Houses of the times and some (M. Hulot’s Holiday and Mon Oncle) did receive some commercial exposure. I don’t think of Tati’s films as Cult films but I think that the US audience was (still is) too adolescent to really understand and appreciate his (or any truly fine) films. Hollywood did pretty well with its weepies, creepies, oaters and some really good two-reelers of yesteryear but the times have changed. When it comes to modern filmmaking; Hollywood is now nothing more than a financial dystopia churning out insipid pabulum for the mindless. The upside to this is that the reduced expense of digital filmmaking has opened the door to the many and there will be a few Auteur filmmakers (very few) able to make the climb. Keep your chin up. John; that’s true enough.
Not all auteur directors are writers. Alfred Hitchcock is a perfect example. An auteur director is simply one who is consistent visually or thematically.
Marc, the auteur theory in filmmaking reflects the view that the Director is the film’s primary creative force. I certainly agree that Hitch is a wonderful example but he had a rough time dealing with his cast & crew (writers and actors in particular.) I’m talking about present day filmmaking in the digital environment. Today, ‘most anyone can make a movie. But it still remains true that extremely few can produce a “good” movie – a compelling story well shown. Generally, I think this democratizing of filmmaking is a good thing in that it allows more people a shot at success but it also means that a lot of wanabies will taste failure. Filmmaking is not for everybody.
Changes in technology do not change the definition.
Absolutely true Marc, absolutely true. But the changes in the technology open the doors to many more participants yet it remains true that very few will reach the pinnacle of success although many will try. On balance, I see this as a good thing.
It does definitely open up the possibilities for more indie films. I hope to be doing one soon.