Auteur Theory (what it is and what the problems are)

Auteur Theory is a creative analysis theory originating in the study of film. Show version, it says that the director is the most important single person when it comes to the medium of film and the finished product. Some folks take issue with that.
✔ SUPPORT ✔
Patreon: / councilofgeeks
KZbin Membership: / @councilofgeeks
Paypal tip jar: PayPal.me/councilofgeeks
Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/verawylde
✔ OTHER CHANNELS ✔
Break Room of Geeks / @breakroomofgeeks
Vera Wylde: / verawylde
✔ SHOP ✔
Merch: www.teepublic.com/user/counci...
My Book on Gender Fluidity: a.co/d/atfibBA (Amazon Associate link, commissions earned)
My Fantasy Novel: amzn.to/2SCxB8j (Amason Associate link, commissions earned)
✔ SOCIAL MEDIA ✔
Twitter: / councilofgeeks
Facebook: / councilofgeeks
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@vera.wylde?la...
Instagram: council.of....
Twitch: / councilofgeeks
✔ OTHER PROJECTS ✔
Podcast with my Partner: fireandwaterpodcast.com/show/t...
Council of Geeks Podcast (home of What the Frell & Jumpgate): councilofgeeks.libsyn.com/
✔ WISHLISTS ✔
www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
www.etsy.com/people/dramafrea...
✔ CONTACT ✔
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mail:
Council of Geeks
PO Box 4429
St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

[@estherrahel5679]

I'll admit that I love The Shining. I think Shelley Duvall gives a great performance, but I think her performance is good despite Stanley Kubrick's behavior towards her, rather than because of it. That she gave such a good performance under the circumstances, really speaks to her skill as an actor. Putting aside that there is no excuse for abusive, toxic behavior, there have been plenty of studies that show that people perform better when they are in a healthy work environment where they feel safe and supported, and while a film set is not a typical work environment, it is still a work environment. There's a vulnerability in acting and I wonder what type of performance she could have given if she felt safe and supported enough to fully explore that vulnerability.

[@jordanscott2858]

I'm glad the Razzies revoked her worst actress award, which was from the first year they started. Because even they now know it's cruel to give a dishonor to someone who suffered so much.

[@christianc.christian5025]

I could never get on board with this movie. I wasn’t crazy about the book when I first read it about 20-ish years ago, but ‘Doctor Sleep’ was the first thing which made me appreciate Kubrick’s version.

[@stephennootens916]

After seeing the movie at least a dozen times before I read the book and realize how empty the movie. Kubrick's movies a nice looking but there cold and soulless which just doesn't work for me.

[@stephennootens916]

@@Tolstoy111 just because that is the point doesn't mean it works. One can turn to the classic great horror movie The Exorcist were Friedkin get us to care about Regan and her mom which the shit hit the fan and her mom is trying everything she can to make Ragen better we are with her, we are with her as her sweat little girl becomes possessed. We are shocked and horrified at what the demon does with Ragen. In the Shining your just waiting for Jack to try and murder his family. Wendy and Danny might as well be meat bags in a low budget slasher for all it is worth. And as for King I have to strongly disagree with you. While not ever novel is a masterpiece he us over great writer who knows how to get the reader to care about the characters and ground them in reality before the wild often times supernatural parts of the story come in to a story.

[@stephennootens916]

@@Tolstoy111 Well if that works for you fine but it doesn't for me. The film feels empty dull but it can be pretty at times. As for Stephen King we are going to have to agree to disagree. I thing by and large he is a great writer who knows how to tell a compelling story.

[@nightowl8477]

Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro and alike all work with the same production team for every film they do. It isn't the director achieving their consistent styles across their filmographies, it's a team of people. A collective style, each department determining the direction of the other. But you don't hear those names, because the Star System doesn't just apply to talent, and it lives on to this day. That's the argument.

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

I think the snappiest definition - and implicit mockery - of Auteur Theory is that joke in Mel Brooks' "The Producers", when the Nazi author of the play "Springtime for Hitler" barks at a lady in the audience: "You are ze audience, I am ze aussor - I outrank you!" And while Brooks certainly was an auteur, he certainly didn't have his head up his own posterior in the way many auteurs did & do.

[@marocat4749]

As doesnt watiti. And terentino really considers and has actors letting them do their thing. He gotthat stars on board because he wrote for them. He has a distinct style but never lets that get over his head. Thats really, directors are only as good as the people they work with (and it was whedons aving grace as ..he was, he has an eye for talent that makes up fo his ... in his series.

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

@@marocat4749 Taika Waititi is a precious jewel, I love his work!

[@mrcritical6751]

Taika is an auteur but he’s chill as hell about it

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

@@mrcritical6751 True!

[@Carabas72]

@@marocat4749 Tarantino almost crippled or killed Uma Thurman in a stunt she felt was unsafe because was too much of an auteur to listen to her or his people.

[@Sapphic_Traffic]

I am currently a film student and I feel this a lot, I was working with this guy for one of our assignments last year and he was an absolute power trip thinking he was an auteur he took weeks for the visual edit because it wasn’t specifically to his liking and then give me a weekend to do a full sound edit and kept giving me a bunch of notes as if he hadn’t just give me a weekend to do the sound edit and I felt like crap I told him that this would not be happening if we were going to work together next year and he agreed and he did the exact same thing this year so I’m drawing the line here and if he asks me to work on any passion projects he’s not getting my sound work.

[@brittlebricks10]

Your time and expertise is just as valuable as his! (I'm being generous towards him...)

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

Thank you for pointing out that auteur director =/= good director! Uwe Boll is one example, Tommy Wiseau is another. Kyle Kallgren did a video 4 years ago, called "Tommy Wiseau - The Last Auteur", in which he also delves into both Auteur Theory and The Cult of the Auteur.

[@oddduck2003]

This ain't it, chief

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

@@oddduck2003 Do you actually have a point to make or did you just want to drop a phrase you copied from Black twitter because you thought it sounded cool?

[@user-do2ev2hr7h]

No, but that's true of any art. Not all painters are good painters. Not all writers are great writers. That said, I would probably argue that most great works of art are representative of someone's singular vision and even the bad ones tend to be more interesting.

[@Manganra7]

When you were listing auteurs, I was a little surprised Wes Anderson didn’t come up. Then, when you were talking about video games, the first name that popped into my head was Tetsuya Nomura.

[@christianwise637]

As far as I've heard, Anderson is another one of those auteur directors who's known for being really humble and pleasant to work with. Aside from Gene Hackman on The Royal Tenenbaums, I don't think I've heard of any instance of him coming to blows with an actor, or indeed anyone on his film sets

[@Manganra7]

@@christianwise637 Good to know! Yeah, I hadn’t heard anything unpleasant about him, just surprised he wasn’t mentioned at all, even in “these people are nice auteurs” section, considering how unique and stylized his work is.

[@natsmith303]

Not my original sentiment, but the fact that the cast of Salo, or 120 Days of Sodom had a fun, light tone on-set and didn't realize how horrifying the actual movie was until the premiere is a resounding condemnation of every director who thinks they need to traumatize their actors to get the proper performance.

[@theqwertyqwistle6972]

I wouldn't give to much credit or appreciation to that director considering he was a Pedophile.

[@joaquimqueiroz9714]

The thing is I'd classify Pasolini as an auteur. He clearly has a distinct voice and way of filmmaking that are present in all his films (which are made with different crews). So for me when auteur filmmakers end up behaving badly, it isn't a problem with the theory when being put in practise, but moreso stemming from the filmmakers themselves. There are filmmakers who I wouldn't say are auteurs that have had a bad behaviour on set.

[@natsmith303]

@@joaquimqueiroz9714 Gonna be honest, this video was long enough ago I don't actually remember what its exact contents are and thus what context I said that in. However in the present day, I don't think my point had anything to do with your rebuttal. I was talking about abusive directors, not about whetheror not Pasolini was an auteur.

[@joaquimqueiroz9714]

I understand that, I guess I was kind of adding something to it, I wasn't trying to disagree with you directly

[@natsmith303]

@@joaquimqueiroz9714 Ah okay, apologies then.

[@shaunmccomish8572]

In a word, yes. Auteur theory essentially takes the awful anti-democratic notions of 'Great man theory' in History and apply it to art. Whilst it is true that art can be made by exceptional individual talents, the latter truth is twisted to portray art as the product of a select few who are 'superior' to everyone else. The fact this viewpoint often is invoked to excuse terrible behaviour towards others, those in what is technically a subordinate position to the 'talent' or 'Creative', is another thing to hold against it. Our world seems to sadly continue to centred around imbalances of power in so many ways and it's psychologically impossible to have inequality without some supposed rationale.

[@NelsonStJames]

you’re actually adding a lot more to the notion of auteur theory than the definition, or the theory in practice; which is rather common for people who aren’t creators. If you as an artist has the idea for a film, (or any work of art) and you bring it to fruition then you are in the fact the auteur. There is nothing sinister about it. We’ve come to this weird place in time where people think that all art is collaborative, when the majority of art be it film or whatever is personal.

[@moonlight4665]

@@NelsonStJames I don't think the OP is criticizing the theory per se, rather the kind of behaviour that is encouraged by it.

[@midge0087]

The Jump Cut to “I think I may have made a mistake here” was Beautiful 😍 I love that opening

[@CulturePhilter]

A perfect example of your point about how if everyone else stayed the same on a film but the director changed you would get 2 very different movies are the two versions of Justice League.

[@jordanscott2858]

Can we address how Orson Welles may have been a source of blame for studios protecting auteurs? He was first given a final cut privilege as a first-time director for Citizen Kane. The film faced controversy as William Randolph Hearst, a powerful media conglomerate and inspiration for Charles Foster Kane, tried to sabotage the release of the film viewing it as a personal attack. Though the film was released with fanfare, the controversy with Hearst screwed Welles over as he never had the same level of control again. His second film The Magnificent Ambersons was re-edited by RKO Pictures behind Welles's back, he was busy filming a documentary about South America that was eventually scraped while Ambersons was in post-production. Welles kept having issues with studios and after his fifth film Lady From Shanghai, he went to Europe to film his productions onward for almost a decade. He tried Hollywood again with Touch of Evil, but like Ambersons, studio interference comprised the final product. Welles to his credit tried to be diplomatic with a memo detailing how to improve the cut the studio made but was ignored and Welles returned to Europe. He did not accept his honorary Oscar that was given years later because of his distaste for the studio system. Nowadays since Welles, we have auteurs such as Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and Guillermo del Toro. Hollywood wants to try to maintain the idea of being auteur friendly and not have their talent go outside the system like what happened with Welles. The last thing they want is directors being discouraged to work in Hollywood, despite the obstacles that Welles faced still being present if the case of Snyder's Justice League is to go by.

[@stephennootens916]

To be fair there are auteur directors in America that never really worked in the studio system, your John Waters and Rob Zombies whose movies never made massive piles of cash or got a shit load of awards.

[@mylopintorizvi4349]

its a similar issue with method acting. The art doesn't justify being a shit no matter the quality of the end result.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

See the thing is, method acting doesn’t require you be a pain to work with. But certain ass hats ::cough:: Jared Leto ::cough:: do it that way.

[@marocat4749]

As good thing there, sure nicolas cage is a ttalent but he , dosnt need that for his mad cage ham performance, leto shouldnt need that to nail that performance he always is. (and he literally has a cult) and riobinson as garak wrote a diary of garaks life to act him better. thats method acting harmless.

[@Maerahn]

People like Jared Leto (as a random, let's-just-grab-the-first-name-that-springs-to-mind example) give method acting a bad name. You can 'immerse yourself in your character' *without* behaving like a total turdcake - and if you really think that's the only way you can achieve it... well, you aint as talented an actor as you think you are.

[@mrcritical6751]

Honestly method acting just seems to make everyone a dick eventually. Just look at Daniel Day Lewis, top quality actor but did he really have to act paralysed when he wasn’t even performing during the production of My Left Foot?

[@Gxbbzee]

This is part of the reason I'm so happy that Raimi is directing the next Doctor Strange. He seems like a lovely person to work with, whose garnered immense respect, and doesn't seem to have an ego. I suppose time will tell if anything negative comes out about him, but he seems super worthy of the fruitful career he's had.

[@mrcritical6751]

Post Evil Dead 1 Raimi at least, apparently he kinda mistreated his actors on the first movie

[@Estarfigam]

I like the Shining, I hate what he did to Shelly Duvall. She was a talented woman and we missed out on some performances she could have done if Kubrick hadn't terrorized her. I'm with you on Snyder, not my type of movie, but he respects the team I like that.

[@theqwertyqwistle6972]

It's nice to see Shelley Duvall move on from that and go on to have a very successfully career with less toxic individuals

[@Mojjs92]

I had no idea what that word meant before watching this video. Thank you for the thorough explanation!

[@normamcphee8956]

When I think of a director with auteur tendencies who is not a jerk to his cast and crew, the image that come to mind is Rian Johnson sitting on Carrie Fisher's bed brainstorming dialogue.

[@nekusakura6748]

I'm reminded of Doug Walker's Praise of Stanley Kubrick when I used to watch The Nostalgia Critic. The Phrase 'Kindred Spirits' comes to my mind now....

[@nekusakura6748]

@@Tolstoy111 Walker was a Toxic micromanger towards Lindsey Ellis during her Nostalgia Chick reviewing days (often making her say his opinions instead of hers).

[@lunaskies624]

Thank you for such a brilliant video. It's really helped me to understand the topic so much better :)

[@samuelbarber6177]

It is an interesting idea, particularly in film (which is where my mind most often goes to). Films are not like novels or paintings, which are primarily the work of one person outside of a few examples (not to mention publishers, illustrators, editors etc). One person doesn’t create a film. Films typically have anywhere from a small crew, such as an independent production, to a cast and crew of thousands, and that’s just the production crew. However, it can’t be denied that many film productions can be the creation of one mind. This is why many films have possessory credits in the beginning, for instance “Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho” or something like “A Film By Quentin Tarantino”. Tarantino himself happens to be one of my own favourite directors. Whenever you watch one of his films, there’s no question that it’s HIS film. That’s not to say every decision made in service of that film is his decision. This doesn’t mean that a director is good because they are an auteur. I’d argue most auteurs aren’t. If you’re an auteur, it just means we know who to blame. If you end up buying into the idea that only your input really matters, that’s when you get the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. You end up surrounding yourself with Yes-men. Believing yourself to be such creates the stereotype of: ‘I am artiste, I must be allowed to art.’ Which is fine for poets but you shouldn’t be allowed to get millions of dollars from studios. I’d argue that this is directly tied to the fame of the director. If a newcomer tried anything that Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock did (at least in the modern era) they’d be chucked out immediately (I’d at least hope so). I may like their films… but my God were they horrible. Something else that’s tied to their fame, is the fans. Now, far be it from me to suggest other people are in the wrong for gushing about certain directors, I’ve done it incessantly myself, but sometimes it goes too far. I’m just saying that cases like a movie studio actually editing and releasing ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ kind of shows our love for auteurs, does it not? A recut version of an unpopular film that runs over four hours being officially released as the director’s vision. One person doesn’t make a film. Even Robert Rodriguez doesn’t make a film by himself.

[@christianc.christian5025]

Michael Bay was who I thought you’d mention when you said “modern examples” being Whedon. Bay makes movies that are so distinctly his that when a sequel comes out to one of his movies that *isn’t* his - like ‘Bumblebee’ and ‘Bad Boys for Life’ - they are met with a breath of fresh air.

[@jlb7289]

Love this video, thoughtful and nuanced. I feel the same way you do about Snyder...I just don't like his films, but from everything I've read he seems to be a great person to work for! Another auteur I was thinking about during your video...Otto Preminger. I listened to the YOUMUSTREMEMBERTHIS podcast about Jean Seberg and Jane Fonda, there I learned about how Preminger went about breaking Seberg down (for his movie about Joan of Arc) so he could 'remake' her. What he did was horribly abusive and who knows if her subsequent mental problems were exacerbated by that mistreatment at the beginning of her career. I agree with your central point, auteur theory gets in the way of dealing with toxic people and protecting those who work for them.

[@dhericean5260]

Clean, interesting, and thought provoking. A good, balanced, and insightful presentation on Auteur Theory. Made a few points that pull me back from the attitude decried in the video, thanks. I was disappointed, in the light of recent news, that Ron Gilbert was not amongst the gaming auteurs mentioned.

[@NelsonStJames]

Auteur Theory is a reality, but not applicable to every film, Jaws is a prime example. Jaws would be a completely different film without editor Verna Fields. On the other hand films by director Stanley Kubrick would pretty much look the same no matter what crew he was working with, that’s how much control he had, probably the same could be said of a C B Demille. In Hollywood today, there really aren’t that many auteurs anymore, because film has become a much more corporate product.

[@Sara_TheFatCultureCritic]

I draw the distinction between Auteur Theory and the Cult of the Auteur. As you say the figure of the auteur is almost worshipped by fans, studios, and culture and it's the cultishness that is the problem. I think that does contribute to people ignoring the work of collaborators, particularly when the auteur figure is a showrunner on a tv show. That wasn't something Auteur Theory was intended to cover, but showrunners are often worshipped as auteurs when tv is even more collaborative than film. If you remove any of the major writers on Buffy for example, even if you kept Whedon it would not be the same show.

[@mrcritical6751]

That’s the main issue with Zack Snyder. Sure he’s a nice and standup guy but the abundance of people who treat him like he’s “the second coming of Christ, gods gift to cinema that the simple minded plebs just don’t understand” is what causes the amount of annoyance and pushback on him as a director

[@tarabound]

Surprisingly, I had not heard of this before. Thank you. I hope you get through your to-do list quickly and easily. Take care of yourself.

[@sbi168]

My two favorite Auteurs are Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan. Zack is apparently a lovely guy who looks after his staff and stars alike. Chris i believe is stricter and issues a more top down mentality but is far from an nightmare. I like strong visions and strong ideas. Directors are very, very important in films as they steer the ship and hire the key people like Director of photography etc. They help dictate the shape of the movie and the way the movie is put together. If you get the same movie script etc and give it to an auteur like zack snyder and a very "meat and two veg" director like Chris Columbus the movie would be drastically different. (btw i like allot of columbus movies but they are interchangeable with many other directors and other no unique flair or personal style) MIchael Bay is an Auteur and is also apparently be a not very nice person. I also happen to largely dislike his filmography. While he has done a handful of decent movies like 13 hours and bad boys 1. Way too many are big and loud with a disgusting view on women(loves the upskirt shots) and with childish humor.

[@Stephen-Fox]

Great video. Thanks for this.

[@tideoftime]

While I absolutely agree with you vis-a-vis Duvall's treatment (inexcusable), I'm sorry to hear that you hate Kubrick's The Shining -- I think it's a masterpiece that takes it's source material (which is also good, just to be clear) to a whole other level/dimension, especially when one takes time to discuss and/or watch various documentaries and discussion-theories about the layering of imagery and subject matter in it. I've watched it many times over the decades and am amazed that I *still* catch/see/understand things (imagery, contextual allusions -- of which there are *so many* it's mindboggling -- cross psychological dissonance, etc.) that I didn't note before despite having seen it so many times since it came out over 40 years ago. But in any case, again totally agree with you that Kubrick was a complete asshole for treating Duvall the way he did... absolutely no excuse.

[@deepakcharles]

This is going to be an interesting watch and my opinions before the video are that the problem with auteurs is that they come off as super pretentious. Like putting actors through misery or thinking they're better than everyone in the room. Plus, the fandumb that surrounds these people makes the whole thing unbearable. For example: Do I enjoy Nolan's work? Yes. Would I discuss my opinions on it online? Nope. Thoughts after: I don't think I've heard you swear :O but I agree with your points wholeheartedly and I think I pretty much had the same opinion before I started watching. I do want to add that I think the mention of the idea that "auteur theory says nobody else matters" has merit mentioning ONLY because it's what the studios and corporations believe. We always see this bowdlerizing of theory or ideas to make it easily understandable and I think the meaning gets lost somewhere along the way. No WB, Whedon wasn't going to magically fix Justice League. Tenet isn't the greatest movie ever. And the whole "gritty realism with a brown colour grade" isn't fun for almost every genre of film apart from anything noir inspired (aka Batman) and we have Nolan to thank for that. A lot of this also probably gets fuel from the way that class structures and sexism affect these things, not to mention how capitalism influences these projects. When someone is given undue amounts of freedom in pursuit of "perfection" aka, exceptionalism, it's just going to be a crapshoot.

[@jhon4379]

Through out this video, I could only think: "The Dean had his seventh epiphany today, which has given me an epiphany of my own: the Dean is a genius. He has to be. If he isn't, then I've given almost two weeks of life to an idiot; that is unacceptable. Therefore, the Dean is a genius, and I will die protecting his vision."

[@maurinet2291]

That is SO perfect.

[@Amanda-kd1zr]

THANK YOU! I think this is probably my favorite video Council of Geeks ever done. They articulated so much of what I try to explain to people about my view on directors, writers, and showrunners who become celebrities unto themselves. And how making a good film seems to be defended as an excuse to abuse people (movies are not more important than people) or only geniuses are horrible to their workers, and if they aren't terrible to them they aren't as good. That's not true if these defenders look at more directors beyond their bubble. There are plenty of great performances given and amazing visions come to life without terrible accusations following them (Spielberg for instance). Those who make that excuse for people like Whedon and Kubrick are tunnel visioned in their arguments and quite childish. You can love the work and have it speak to you without thinking these people were nice nor do you have to make excuses (there are other good nerdy writers besides Whedon, I promise. You won't be left with no content without him). Also, this video gets a thumbs up for saying Kubrick was a jackass wasting everyone's time. Agreed! If it takes you over 100 shots to get it exactly as you wanted, maybe you aren't a very good director. Also, I hate The Shining movie, too. Yes, *some* good performances and it's artistic but it's the most overrated movie I've ever seen in my whole life. I'm so genuinely unimpressed and annoyed by it. And I doubt he truly cared about what the story meant to Stephen King or the people who connected with the book.

[@stephennootens916]

It pretty much has little to do with King's book even down to the structure. Wendy is a complex character in the book. Jack is not two steps from murdering his family, he loves Danny and Wendy and is struggling with personal demons.

[@owenwildish331]

From the sound of it and I could be misunderstanding this but from the sound of it the problems with Auteur Theory are in a similar to vain as to why I particularly dislke the term "Showrunner" maybe Auteur is a posh way of saying Showrunner, perhaps , I don't know if anyone would agree about that though but as usual a great & informative video, thank you. (I'm a bit embarrassed that I hadn't heard about Auteur Theory before considering how interested in film & television, lol, although I might have before and perhaps just forgot about it).

[@kellgrigg3799]

I would very much like to hear what you think of the shining more in-depth, while many people love it. It would be interesting to hear arguments of the contrary.

[@dez6529]

I know nothing about film theory but this was really interesting!

[@BENY0HAMA]

I don’t know if there’s a name for it, but I definitely think there’s an equivalent for auteur theory for actors, especially “method actors” who make life hard for everyone on set, but are afforded a lot of leeway by the studios because they think they’re the most important part of the film

[@Lil-Dragon]

No idea what this theory is so curious to learn a little bit today.

[@WhiteWolf496]

Vince Gilligan, the creator of Breaking Bad and co-creator of Better Call Saul says it best imo... "Auteur theory is crap... it takes a village to make a film" and other variations on that.

[@NelsonStJames]

Well that might be the case for Hollywood, but in the independent world of filmmaking, which is still legitimate filmmaking, there are LOTS of films made that don’t require a hypothetical village to make.

[@WhiteWolf496]

@@NelsonStJames the village is a metaphor for... well more than one person.

[@Tiffany__B]

i had literally just found out about what happened to Shelley Duvall only a few days before this video dropped and i was so shocked, i had no idea she was mistreated like that. At this point i always need to check every single director before saying i enjoy them cause 9 times out of 10 they have horrifying stories on set, it's terrible. And let's not even begin on the mess that is the videogame industry. Ugh. Anyways, you did an amazing job in explaining everything well in this video, much appreciated!! 💙

[@nancyjay790]

Complete aside. My husband has worked as an extra in a number of films (I know the shape of his ears from behind just so I can spot him), and has twice worked as an extra in Christopher Nolan's films. Nolan is incredibly hands-on-- while as assistant director was assigned to one scene my husband was in, Nolan arrived nearly half way through and talked privately with the AD, and he then re-positioned certain people and got make-up done on an extra who got brought forward and given a couple lines. Not sure if that matters to anyone, but I found it interesting.

[@Maerahn]

Well, I learned some stuff I didn't know before today, so you thank you for that! ☺ So, in a way, I guess you could compare auteurs to chefs? As in, you could ask them all to make a mac'n'cheese for inclusion on the restaurant menu... they all know what mac'n'cheese is, they all know the basic ingredients and the basic steps to making it, but there will be distinct differences in the taste, texture and presentation of each chef's mac'n'cheese. Gordon Ramsey's mac'n'cheese won't look or taste like Heston Blumenthal's mac'n'cheese (because the latter will add in caramellised pigeon hearts or something, most likely...) but they're still essentially the same dish. And that still creates the same pitfalls, because, like directors, chefs can be charismatic visionaries, but they can also be sadistic assholes (I know - I've worked with both.) Everyone thinks Gordon Ramsey is the king of Mean, but let's not forget that *Marco Pierre White made him cry* when Gordon worked for him. I guess you have to be a little bit arrogant to make bold, creative decisions for a living - but it becomes a problem when it becomes like pouring petrol on a fire.

[@lukecarlson4710]

Thank you for going into this topic, I totally thought I knew what auteur theory was and I totally didn’t. You also brought up some really good points on what we, as a society, allow for the sake of an artist. Does Hitchcock’s films justify his terrible behavior? I don’t think so, but it’s a worthwhile discussion to have.

[@lukecarlson4710]

@@Tolstoy111 I literally can’t remember where I was going with this comment so I don’t know. Whoops.

[@matthewrouge]

Well done, well said! I think people also like to simplify and have something to worship--"cult of the auteur," as some have already referenced here.

[@r.j.sullivan2104]

Just here to mention Tim Burton, possibly one of the most distinct auteurs of recent decades.

[@marocat4749]

Neil breen is an auteur.

[@andrewbowman4611]

I remember, many years ago, Stanley Kubrick described as having "an artistic temperament", as if mistreating people is somehow valid if it's in service to the art. Shockingly, Shelley Duvall was seen as weak-willed and thin-skinned for decades. Perhaps obviously, the understanding of mental health at that time was severely limited and, while I'm not defending the man, I'm not entirely convinced he knew the impact his actions and attitudes were having on her. If he did, then I stand corrected. It could also be argued that, because Kubrick was seen as such a visionary, some directors sought to emulate him, both artistically and temperementally, in order to feel confident in their own talents. Interestingly, Steven Spielberg considered Kubrick a good friend despite his toxic work ethic, so it's not impossible that out of work he was a kinder, gentler man. I realise that this is now veering dangerously close to seeming like a Kubrick-apologist, but I hope my actual point is clear; that who someone is at home is not necessarily who they are at work. I noticed that there was no mention of other auteur directors such as Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam and others of that ilk. Is there a reason for this, or do you not consider them auteur in the same way?

[@yensid4294]

I can remember seeing a comedy skit back in the 70s (I think it was SNL but I'm not certain) that kinda poked fun at this idea by satirizing Sam Pekinpah's auteur in a fake trailer for Sam Pekipah's The Sounds of Music or something ridiculous like that. And I've seen it done more recently & hilariously well(again I think it might be SNL) by taking iconic movies & switching the directors to demonstrate exactly what you meant by Auteur Theory. I mean, Michael Bay & Wes Anderson would not produce the same film would they, even given everything else being the same.

[@SplotchTheCatThing]

I have to admit, coming at this from the perspective of a chaotic neutral musician, I prefer to think of an ideal collaborative project as one where all the people involved would be encouraged to bring their own unique talents and sense of fun to the endeavor, and if there has to be a person in charge, they keep a loose hand on the wheel and an open mind on new directions the project could take that might improve it, if those present themselves, and plenty of fish to eat, of course. Should have lots of breaks to go swimming so everybody stays happy and healthy. And plenty of mud-banks to slide down. Everybody should stay wet, especially the person in charge, since with the right sense of fun for everyone and a fun atmosphere they'll be like an... --- --- ...have you figured out the pun yet?

[@allyssaswain2394]

What don't you like about the shining (outside of Shelley Duvall's treatment)?

[@CouncilofGeeks]

It's paced like garbage, many scenes start out well but then drag themselves out to oblivion. Jack seems to already be half out of his mind when the movie starts so the degradation of his condition is neither shocking nor is it tragic. The exposition scenes are some of the clunkiest dialog I've seen in what purports to be a "classic," a problem compounded by the aforementioned dragging out of many scenes. I remember it being one of my first cases of seeing a film as a teenager where a character death felt just fundamentally wrong (Dick Hollorann in this case), the instance he dies in a manner usually reserved for fodder characters just left me going "why the hell did we spend so much time with him then when he doesn't even get to find out if Danny and Wendy are even still alive?" and I've never been able to shake some version of that feeling. It tries to ride this middle line of "is it ghosts or is Jack just bonkers" and fails because too much of what's going on can't be the case without some supernatural influence, but how the supernatural parts fit together is so vaguely explained that you can't put together a satisfying complete picture. And no, that's not me saying "you must explain everything," I'm saying you have to explain enough that the leaps the audience makes on their own are reason able ones instead of trying to construct half the story that you just decided to not tell. I'm not saying nothing is good. There's a couple of decent scenes like the first Jack and Lloyd the bartender scene. But ultimately what this all boils down to is that I find it long and boring, never scary, and rarely even tense. And while I can't claim this is the case for all fans of the film, I find it very telling that I've never had a conversation with a fan telling me what they like about it where they don't spend half the time going on about meticulous side details nobody notices on the first watch rather than the core of the story.

[@borjankosarac3645]

This reminds me of “Tomorrowland”, which had it been a success would purportedly have given Brad Bird some degree of auteur’s license… apparently he’d hoped to produce a traditionally-animated movie if the film was financially viable. Of course as we know it flopped, and we got “Incredibles 2” so. Yeah.

[@Rosemont104]

I recently saw the film "Introducing Dorothy Dandridge," and the relationship between her and that director Otto Preminger was disturbing to say the least.

[@HalloweenYearRound]

Similar to Zack Snyder, Rob Zombie is another director who's incredibly divisive. His films are intentionally grotesque and disturbing and offensive. But everyone who works with him says he's the most down to Earth, least pretentious director in the world. Dee Wallace has been in several of his movies thus far and says she keeps doing it because he's just a great director to work with and is very collaborative and open to suggestion from his actors. So regardless of whether you like his movies, he seems like the exact opposite of a Kubrick.

[@stephennootens916]

Zombie is also a good example of one that works largely out side studio system and the mainstream. Another one would be John Waters who is pretty much in force retirement because he can't raise the backing for his type of movies. I think Lynch is also seen as indie director as well.

[@meander112]

Engagement for the engagement god!

[@DavidBeddard]

As ever, the key message is "Whatever else you might be, don't be an asshole."

[@cmmosher8035]

Your thumbnail has David Lynch who seems to be interesting case. He definitely has his style that dominates his movies but collaborates with his actors and despite delving in dark places he seems to take care of his actors during those scenes. I knew that Hitchcock as an ass but i recently read about his treatment of Tippi Hedren during birds thats forced me to reconsider what i think of him.

[@mrcritical6751]

Lynch seems to be a nice guy, he cameoed on Family Guy in a sketch that parodied his directing style so clearly he’s very chill about everything and doesn’t take himself all that seriously

[@cmmosher8035]

@@mrcritical6751 Maggie Mae Fish recently did a deep dive on Twin Peaks the Return and she interviewed the actress who play a mother whose kid is run over by the villian. Its not a big role but apparently Lynch was excited to meet with her and provided after care after the scene was done shooting. It greatly unfortunate that people will use their position to abuse others. I am glad that some who wont but that feels like a low bar.

[@stephennootens916]

She also did a video directly comparing him to Kubrick and what he did to Duvall. She uses Lynch's Blue Velvet and his work with Rossellini. Note Rossellini's performed made Ebert uncomfortable. There is a clip on you tube of his show with Gene and you can see how much it effected him.

[@mrcritical6751]

@@stephennootens916 could be a situation like with Sam Raimi where they were kinda awful on their earlier projects and had to change their ways

[@stephennootens916]

@@mrcritical6751 As I recall from the video Lynch and Rossellini worked well together on the set, and that Lynch had a good set. The thing with Ebert, it was on his show with Gene back in the day and they were reviewing the movie, and Ebert was so up set and Gene had to remind him she was actress and she agree to play the part. That was how powerful her performance.

[@cryofpaine]

20:02 I don't think that's the damage of auteur theory. It's just a byproduct of capitalism. Auteurs, CEOs - anyone who holds a unique place due to their perceived value is granted special rights; and those who don't hold that uniqueness within the system (like minimum wage workers) are treated as disposable and expendable.

[@stevespain6445]

Great piece! As for auteur theory not really applying to theatre - I studied performing arts teaching, and we definitely studied director as auteur in relation to theatre. Perhaps film critics think it predominantly applies to film, but I think that might be more about the popularity of film, than whether you can (and do) apply it to theatre directors.

[@lucywillis4535]

Ed woods was an auteur...

[@JaredGriffiths2000]

Yeah sometimes directors get it to their head.

[@FallenGemini]

I am glad you have named Swery as an auteur as he is a bit obscure, yet arrogant especially after making The Missing: J.J. Macfield and the Island of Mysteries. While it is a great LGBT game, the game gave Swery an excuse that he an ally of the trans community despite his next game was transphobic. IIRC, Swery and Laura Kate Dale had a back and forth regarding the transphobic nature of the games.

[@patrickt.6492]

I think sometimes the director's ego shows in the final product, not just the way the actors are treated. Kubrick made some good films, but in my opinion, some of his later stuff is just rambling and pretentious. In his earlier films, he tried a little harder to keep things under budget, but with his last movie (Eyes Wide Shut), he went *way* over time and over budget and the result is a film that is brilliant in places but frustrating at the same time. Also, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman said it was not a fun shoot.

[@subtlegong2817]

Of all the schlock films made from Stephen King’s books King still hates The Shining the most. That says something…

[@highvoltage7797]

Wes Anderson is also a great auteur director.

[@theqwertyqwistle6972]

Never been a big fan of Kubrick. I'm happy to see Duvall still has fond memories of him but he was not a nice filmmaker at the end of the day. Just my opinion.

[@wynngwynn]

there's loads of directors that treat their casts amazingly and get great performances so...

[@nekusakura6748]

Like Luca Guadagnino

[@mwilso2]

Unexpected content choice but welcome. The most heinous & possibly one time offense by an Auteur? The accusations levied a couple of years ago against Bernardo Bertolucci (Not very geek culture) by the lead actress in Last Tango In Paris. Brando supposedly shares equal blame in regards to the alleged onset sexual assault but it’s still pretty unforgivable.

[@benw4409]

I have a lot of time for auteurs as long as they don't become prima donnas. Some amazing directors are shitty people, other times it's just a cool person with a defined shooting style. I generally don't like auteur theory but it's a bit rich of me to say that when my favourite directors are the likes of del Toro, Wright, Gunn, Waititi, Argento and Carpenter, all of whom are auteurs. But they'll be first to say that others have helped them achieve that goal, and "journeyman" directors who are hired to deliver a product must also get praise if the product is solid. It's why I hate it when the Russos are called lazy cause they lack a distinct style with their MCU films.

[@Elsenoromniano]

Aside from the inflated sense of ego that some auteurs dire tors have and that the studios allow, even at the cost of letting abuse happen or even actively silencing complaints about the abuse. Auteur theory, while a completely valid mode of analysis, it can very easily fall into two traps that leads to very shallow discussion if films,, the first is basically a very individualistic psychologizing analysis, which often is kind of speculative (think discussions about Woody Allen personal life or Tarantino foot fetish). The other is almost the opposite focusing on the director just on their technical and or thematic quirks, but not on how the interact with our vision of the world, or of the story or with the history on the medium, but just as staples of the director style and nothing else. And both those two are very superficial analysis. Just to clarify, not all auteur theory falls in those trap, just that it is easier to fall into them than if you do other kind of film analysis (like a feminist/queer analysis, a genre analysis or a structuralist analysis).

[@Leena79]

I am not particularly familiar with film theory, but for me it sounds like the problem isn't actually in auteur directors, but in directors with a superiority complex and a diva attitude. I imagine there can be visionary directors with a distinctive style who are not difficult to work with (just because I can't name one right now doesn't mean they don't exist). But I do think being an a*s when working in an industry, which is based on team work, is not something we should accept in the modern world. If you can't handle being a team player, try writing a popular book series instead, I hear there are ways you can become really popular and rich in that field, and still turn out to be a total 🍆 with other people. Huh, I just realized I came to a full circle: instead of being an auteur, become an author. But try not to be an a*s. Okay, it's time I put my phone down.

[@Elsenoromniano]

Wes Anderson and Taika Waititi are auteurs and seem very lovely people to their actors and stuff. Robert Rodriguez seems to fall in the same camp.

[@HotDogTimeMachine385]

I will never understand how movie directors are considered more important than writers. The writer is the one who created the story, the director just transferred to screen.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Well that’s because most writers don’t come up with the story from whole cloth. Not in blockbuster filmmaking anyways. They get hired to write an existing concept or to crystallize an idea pitched by a director or producer.

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

I think the straw-man version of auteur theory and the hate for it comes from confusing auteur theory with The Cult of the Auteur i.e. the toxic fandom of certain auteur directors and the abusive ways in which certain auteur directors whield their power.

[@shaunmccomish8572]

If a system makes it possible for individuals to be abusive or even oppressive with little consequence, then it is clearly the system that is at fault and not just the individuals who will get dismissed as "bad apples". There is nothing more pernicious than the belief in authority that would be inherently benign if not for these supposed apples.

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

@@shaunmccomish8572 Agreed! That's exactly what I mean by The Cult of the Auteur, the attitude that enables this toxicity. Should have put that more clearly, sorry!

[@shaunmccomish8572]

@@gozerthegozarian9500 No, I should apologise! My reply does come across as needlessly hostile. This whole subject matter, like others involving art, is bound to create a lot of strong disagreement. That is no excuse for being antagonistic on my part. 👍

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

@@shaunmccomish8572 No problem, I understand!

[@blackphoenix77]

Aw, no premiere today! 😔

[@gozerthegozarian9500]

Yup, Vera has a tech rehearsal for a show today. She's working like 24/7, it's quite staggering.

[@thedragonsunicorn]

surprised you didn't mention tim burton as an auteur. obviously it's not a problem, but tim burton was the first person to come to mind. you could NOT watch a tim burton film without knowing it wasn't a tim burton film.

[@brucehaven1]

I have a theory about Kubrick probably nonsense but he feels to me like someone with undiagnosed aspergers. ABSOLUTELY not because of the bullying behaviour I have autistic children. But based on his obsessive behaviour and his desire to get extreme performances. I hate the Shining I read the book first and consider it probably Kings best but I hate the film and Jack Nicholson is so over the top it is just one aspect which feels wrong. Nicholson himself said to Kubrick on set he thought he was going too big. I don't think Kubrick reads emotion well a large component of some types of autism. Ironically perhaps my favourite Kubrick film is probably Spartacus. A movie where Kirk Douglas was in ultimate control.

[@petermj1098]

I mean you cannot be overtop as a character who has gone insane

[@stephennootens916]

Jack looks like a man looking for a reason to kill his family from the jump while in the book he is a man who loves his family and is st with his demons which the Overlook uses against him to get to Danny. Also it is vary clear in the book all the supernatural stuff is real.

[@nikoteardrop4904]

Kubrick was a brilliant technical film maker and an absolutely abusive hack of a director. See also: Hitchcock, John Landis, etc.

[@trorisk]

another kind of "author" is Michael Bay. I hate most of his films but he shows/gives a vision of the USA in his films. The USA uninhibited. Sometimes I wonder if he is not an anarchist author who denounces the worst of what is in the USA. Pain and Gain is a scary film for me. But we are almost in an auteur film so much is it.

[@phoxrenvatio]

I think you’re dead on, but the issues are issues of hubris/ego and capitalism more than they are with auteur theory, in my opinion.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

I would agree but auteur theory grants a framework by which these things have been viewed as permissable to a degree I'm not sure would have happened otherwise or as prolifically.

[@phoxrenvatio]

@@CouncilofGeeks I guess all of the actors (who aren’t auteurs, like Kevin Spacey) or executives (like Harvey Weinstein) make it seem like an abuse of power that comes with an industry where there’s so much money involved. If someone is making a lot of money, across any industry, they become insulated by others depending on that financial return. So, while auteur theory can explain why directors are such a financially valuable person to others, I don’t think it’s the fact that it’s a framework to study the art that causes it. Film, more than any other art form (except maybe video games), really sits evenly between art and commerce because it is such a collaborative medium. Anyone seen as valuable can (and there are plenty of examples of it) commit terrible abuses of the power they wield with that value. Casting agents, executives, producers, actors, and many more. It’s no different to the unprofessional behaviour someone like Jared Leto puts the cast and crew through when he’s on Morbius or Suicide Squad. He’s not the auteur, but he’s seen as valuable: so they put up with it. Basically, predators of any sort will hunt given the opportunity. I don’t think auteur theory causes people to become predatory or abusive, I think it’s just a side effect of the power dynamics leading to others enabling that abuse or predatory nature, but anything can lead to that imbalance of power.

[@spencerluther6485]

I think you’ve found correlation, but NOT causation. I think the real issue is that whoever is in charge of the project does not value the workers - there are not enough worker protections/rights in film and videogame industry. By definition, the fact that there are good (as in nice to work with) auteur directors disproves the claims of causation.

[@johannseltmann9493]

That's a bit like saying that there were good kings in history, who treated everyone well etc, and that we should therefore return to an absolute monarchy. It's the fact that there is no corrective (e.g. by studios) that enables abusive directors to do their abuse.

[@spencerluther6485]

@@johannseltmann9493 At no point did I say that everyone should be auteur, and your comparison of director to king ignores studios and the involvement of other (potentially more) powerful people in the movie creation process. Additionally, your comparison implies that only auteur directors deserve a comparison to being ‘a king’, while other directors do not. But non-auteur directors can and have caused suffering; the sheer choice of being an auteur director, rather than non-auteur director, is not proven to cause more suffering.

[@johannseltmann9493]

But part of Vera's argument is that, because of the belief, that the director is irreplaceable in a movie, studios (and other powerful people in the movie creation process) will not counter abusive behavior on the part of the director. That is why I specifically compared auteurs to kings, because they are given unchecked power.

[@spencerluther6485]

@@johannseltmann9493 I am aware of what Vera’s argument is, and why you made the comparison, but my point stands.

[@joelbrown2782]

I don't think Joss Whedon is an Auteur. From my understanding of the theory, because the theory is specific in stating that the director is the one who makes the film their own, with their visual style and thematic subtext. Whedon doesn't have a visual style in his films. I can't think of anything from the films he has made, which is a Whedonism. Although I have only scene, the two Avengers films, he has directed and the Justice League he was put on, to replace, Snyder when he stepped down. None of these films have the same visual style or thematic subtext. I would argue that he is Journeyman director more than anything. because if you replace him as director, on those films, with any other director, those films would likely not be any different to how they are. I would also add that to some extent that Michael Bay is an Auteur as well, its where the term, Bayhem came from. I agree with the point at the beginning of the video, which mentions about the fact that a lot of people don't understand the Auteur Theory. I don't want to sound like an ass here, essentially it winds me up, because I studied film at University, and I am not saying that to make me sound better than anyone else, all I am trying to say is that I have read the textbooks, I spent hours reading and trying to understand film and it seems like some of the creators who make video essays on film and media as a whole, have little understanding of the text, and are just using the basic Wikipedia definition in their works. Not understanding that there is always debate about these theories between academics as well. I think the limitations of the theory itself, is something which should be explored more, because there doesn't seem to be lot on that, on KZbin.

[@stephennootens916]

Lindsey Ellis did a video using thr Auteur Theory while looking at Bay's Transformers. It was part of a series that she sadly never finished.

[@joebrady1694]

No, I think it's just taking away from the artist. Out of all the problems in the world who came up with this being a problem? Maybe it can go too far and they can become too consumed by their work, but I love directors that have their own style and you can tell straight away that it's one of their films.

[@nightowl8477]

12:40 Auteur theory doesn't apply to writers. It came about when critic Andre Bazin wished for the relatively new medium of film to stop being viewed as low art, and instead as high art. He defined how a director should ideally operate for film to definitively be deemed 'high art' with arbitrary guidelines, mostly centred on control and power.

[@AndyPanayiotou27]

They're not auteurs. They're just a**holes. It's all a balancing act. Giving people their due credit without anyone's ego excusing troubling behaviours. There are industries where the creative behind a project doesn't get any recognition. Anything that has to do with product design and large architect firms. Why don't we know who's behind how Razer products look? Take a clearer artistic industry. Perfumery. Designer brands actively don't want you to know the nose behind their fragrances.

[@jacobzeier]

I know I’m in the minority, but I HATE directors who don’t write. I’m a filmmaker, and I’m a true filmmaker. Directors who fail to write are lesser filmmakers. A filmmaker must be a director AND a writer. Directing and NOT writing a movie is dishonest. You claim a movie as your own but you’re stealing someone else’s story. Very few directors would ever be deemed auteurs by most people anyway. What I find annoying is when some video makers credit directors when citing movies in their videos, particularly documentaries, even from what you might call “lesser filmmakers”, ones who aren’t very well-known and who are just hired guns, as I think just about all directors are. If you ask me, directors, most of them, including myself, can be changed and the overall product will only be slightly different, inasmuch as for one who watches enough movies, the same principles apply. Sure, there may be variables between directors, but they are not sufficiently unique. Even, I’m not that unique either. In fact, I like to imitate movies. But directors are irrelevant when I watch movies anyway. Actors, characters, years, sometimes studios, are all relevant to how I analyze and judge movies. Also note, how I rate movies, or any art or fiction for that matter, goes thus; a good movie is a movie that I like and a movie I don’t like is a bad movie. Same goes for music, tv shows, and so on. Pure and simple. Now of course, there will be people who dismiss my attitude as “simple-minded” or “relativistic”. Would anyone be offended if I were to say a movie like, say, _Schindler’s List_ is a bad movie? I would because I hate it. But there are way more movies I could call “bad” even if it’s not socially acceptable to do so. It wouldn’t make any sense to say “Seven is a good movie but I don’t like and won’t watch it again.” Sorry, but you can’t and shouldn’t separate taste from quality. Goodness and enjoyment go hand in hand. If you like a movie, then it’s a good movie to you. That’s all that matters.

[@evaserration6223]

If you need 100 takes and need to gaslight your actors to get your desired shot or performance then you're not a genius you're a bad director.

[@wheresmyjetpack]

I agree that auteurs getting high on their own supply is strongly associated with abuse on sets, I'd also say another major source is exploitative corporate practices, which are sometimes hostile to auteurism and sometimes incorporate it. See Harvey Weinstein.