stj said:
I suppose the auteur theory may have some validity for European cinema but it's just not true of US movies.
It's true for some European filmmakers, but certainly not all. The same reasoning stands for for American filmmakers. There's a reason proponents of the auteur theory focused their energies in elevating certain directors like Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock: they were were broadly influential towards all aspects of production.
The director may not even choose what kind of shots the camera makes! Sometimes, the script already includes the detail.
Rarely. Most recent screenplays don't include camera direction at all, although there are some. I recall Steven Soderbergh was lauded for his direction in a certain scene from
The Limey, but it turns out that it was
indicated by the screenwriter. But that's the exception to the rule. Unless, of course, the director is also the screenwriter.
Sometimes, the movie has been storyboarded, in a collaborative process. At most. (Well, maybe Tim Burton does his own.)
Some directors draw all of their own storyboards, including Ridley Scott. Some directors delegate the responsibility to experienced artists. Some directors split the difference (like Peter Jackson). And some directors don't use storyboards at all. Unless the director is a figurehead for a very powerful producer or producers like the Wachowski Brothers or Irwin Allen, it is their responsibility to approve or disapprove every storyboard.
The director probably doesn't have input into who is hired for the screenplay, for the art direction, the cinematography, the editing or even the orchestration.
The director probably hired all of those people (except the orchestrator--I assume you mean the composer of the score and/or the music supervisor). Recall that, even though
Blade Runner had been Hampton Fancher's pet project for over a decade, when Scott became dissatisfied with his work (after ordering several re-writes), he simply hired a new screenwriter, David Peoples.
Scott also hired the composer (Vangelis) and the cinematographer (Jordan Cronenweth). I don't recall if he hired the art director, but it's likely.
I suggest you read Sidney Lumet's book,
Making Movies, which is fast read that outlines all of the responsibilities of a film director. It certainly has enough amusing anecdotes to be worth reading. For a book that breaks down the development, production, and post-production of
Blade Runner itself (interviewing just about every key cast and crewmember in the process) I once again suggest Paul Sammon's
Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner.
Any director who does have such input usually has a producer credit too, just like the writers who have such input.
And sometimes not.
Blade Runner is "A Michael Deeley--Ridley Scott Production," but Scott has no Producer credit proper.
Being a producer is like being an owner, and that's the real power, rivaled only by a big box office star.
Of course. But one of the duties of a responsible producer is to hire a director who can handle the job, which is to lead a production.
Both writers and directors covet producer titles for this reason. I wll note that many directors like to get a writing credit. Frankly, it seems to me that the reason is that they want credit for creativity.
It seems to me that they want the credit either because they worked as a writer or because they want to earn more money. I doubt working directors familiar with the duties of their job are starving for more creative recognition.
Note that Ridley Scott has never sought a writing credit on a feature film. His only writing credit to date is for his short,
A Boy and a Bicycle, which seems reasonable, since he was the sole writer!
If the auteur theory made a lick of sense, the second unit director is the cocreator!
Second unit directors often work under the strict storyboarded instructions of the first unit director. There's a good example of this on the DVD for the first
Back to the Future film. And sometimes they do have a lot more creative power, and should be recognized for their contribution. The James Bond film series has long been the product of two directors, one who handles dramatic scenes and one who handles the action.
If the auteur theory is correct, The Empire Strikes Back is Irwin Kershner's movie!
Recall that Kershner wasn't hired for
Return of the Jedi because George Lucas wanted a director who would be more of a figurehead instead of an independent thinker. But, yes, George Lucas had strong control of that film series, and it would be a bit silly to try and apply the auteur theory to it.
If the auteur theory is correct, all Orson Welles' movies are united by the same artistic genius!
What, you don't see strong similarities between the few films Welles directed during his sparse career? Of course, Welles' films were notorious for being hijacked by trigger happy producers and executives in post-production, since he managed to use up his full creative control with the financial bomb that was
Citizen Kane.
Plainly, some directors are easily more competent than others. But an incompetent director can make an excellent movie (See the movies of George Lucas.) But the best directors are almost invariably talented in other fields, and their creative contributions come from those talents.
Yes. I don't think this point is lost on people who are fans of
Blade Runner or Ridley Scott, since he was a gifted camera operator, cinematographer, and art director before he made his first feature film.
The only US director I can think of that more or less fits the auteur theory is Alfred Hitchcock. One swallow does not a summer make, and one genuine auteur does not make the auteur theory true. (And, by the way, Hitchcock was both an artist and writer before taking up directing. And Rebecca wasn't different from his other pictures because of his development as an artist either!)
I can't fathom how you don't also include Orson Welles, but whatever. I'd also nominate Terrence Malick, Charlie Chaplin, and Francis Ford Coppola (mainly his work in the 1970s) as other possible candidates. But the auteur theory isn't universal. I don't think anyone here is making that argument.
Buster Keaton movies and the Marx Brothers' movies were also done in such a way as to minimize the importance of the scripts. But then the primary creators were the actors, not the director!
You do realize that Keaton has 47 directorial credits and 39 writing credits, right? The primary creator on Keaton's best films was Keaton, serving as actor, writer, and director. Chaplin, who you didn't mention, was as involved in his films. He even wrote the musical scores!
I'm no expert on the Marx Brothers or how much creative input they had in their films, though I certainly enjoy most of them.
