Auteur Theory Analysis

The theme and the message of artistic art forms are largely at the mercy of the various perceptions that individuals have about them as no two individual perceptions are completely alike. This notion is especially evident when reviewing and interpreting the ideas of classical film theorists and their opinions on the purpose of what the unique art form of film is meant to be, and what methods should be used in order to achieve that purpose. This contrasting difference across different realms of film theory can be seen when looking at the ideas of realist film theorist André Bazin and auteurist film theorist Andréw Sarris. For Bazin, the power of film is derived from its ability to represent reality as it exists with as little artistic interpretation from the director and film makers as possible. This is a stark difference from the auteurist theory expressed by Sarris, in which a great importance is placed upon the director, and the ability of the director to create a unique and recognizable footprint on film. Even though both theorists agree on the unique artistic expression that film is capable of, their beliefs differ on the way in which this is achieved. Comparing the viewpoints of Bazin and Sarris serves to not only highlight the essential differences between their specific ideas but also demonstrates the similarities and differences of both realist and auteurist film theory as a whole. According to Bazin part of what gives film it true power is its ability to preserve time. For example, Bazin compares cinema to ancient mummification techniques saying that preserving elements of reality serves to satisfy “a basic psychological need in man” (Bazin 9). Although mummification and the art form of film are separated my millennia both unique art forms represent a larger part of mankind and its desire to preserve. It is in this frame of thinking that Bazin makes a compelling argument for proper film form to be separated from the director’s influence as much as possible. Bazin states that photography offered a rare chance to depict a world that “is formed automatically, without the creative intervention of man” and that furthermore only the image derives its power from the absence of man” (Bazin 13). Bazin also states that the preservative power of images and of cinema now serves to create “an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal destiny” (Bazin 10). Film form has grown to become much more than a simple representation of a moment of time found in still images, but rather represents an entire preservation of set period of time in an idealized reality. Moreover, Bazin also states that with film “the image of things is likewise the image of their duration, change mummified as it were” (Bazin …show more content…
Within auteur theory nearly all of the true impact of film as an art form comes the director as the person to give film “any distinctive quality” (Sarris 585). Sarris points out one of the premises of auteur theory as being the “distinguishable personality of the director” (Sarris 586). Furthermore he states that “the way a film looks and moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels” (Sarris 586). The importance of the personality of the director in auteur theory is only one premise of the theory as a whole however. Auteur theory emphasizes technique, personal style, and meaning allowing the director to become a technician, a stylist and an auteur (Sarris 587). These essential elements of film are best manipulated by the director as he or she fulfills the three major rolls. Sarris notes personality as being very important as “a distinguishable criterion of value” that when recognizable within film gives it merit (Sarris 586). Furthermore, due to technological advances directorial position can fall to nearly anyone but personality is not as easily found and artistically applied to film (Sarris 587).Sarris states that quite possibly “there is no definition of the Auteur theory” which is likely due in part to its third premise of interior meaning. For example, Sarris notes that “interior meaning is extrapolated from the tension between a director’s personality and his material” (Sarris 586). Interior meaning cannot be clearly defined, yet regardless is a definitive result of the vision of the director, this ambiguity is an essential reason why auteurist theory might fall under heavy criticism from other theorists such as