Description
Discuss these films, 1) Detour by Edgar G. Ulmer (1945), and The Hitchhiker (1953) by Ida Lupino in terms of the studio system versus the auteur theory. Explain what both of these are (Studio System and Auteur Theory). Can a film be both?In Detour what did you find the most subversive or conservative and why? Give us details regarding action and dialogue writing, what we see as in shots/scenes/sequences, editing, scoring, etc to support your belief/s.For evidence use the files attached.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ANDREW SARRIS
NOTES ON THE AUTEUR THEORY IN 1962
…As far as I know, there is no definition of the auteur theory in the English language, that is, by any American or British critic. Truffaut has recently gone to great
pains to emphasize that the 0%∕e%rheoτy was merely a polemical weapon for a given
time and a given place, and lam willing to take him at his word. But, lest I be accused
of misappropriating a theory no one wants anymore, І will give the Cahiers critics full
credit for the origiฑal formulation of an idea that reshaped my Linking on ιhe cin٠
ema. First of all, how does the auteur theory differ fem a straightforward theory of
directors. Ian Cameron’s article “Films, Directors, and Critics,” in Movie of Septem٠
ber, 1962, makes an interesting comment on this issue: “The assumption that underlies all the writing in Movie is that the director is the author of a film, the person who
gives it any distinctive quality. There arc quite large exceptions, with which І shall
deal later.” So fan so good, at least for the auteurtheoryy which even allows for exceptions. However, Cameron continues: “On the whole, we accept the cinema of direc־
tors, although without going to the farthest-out extremes of the la politique des
auteurs, which makes it difficult to think of a bad director making a good film and
almost impossible to think of a good director making a bad one.” we are back to
Bazin again, although Cameron naturally uses different examples. That three other♦
wise divergent critics like Bazin, Roud, and Cameron make essentially the same p6int
about the auteur theory suggests a common fear of its abuses, ỉ believe there is a mis■
understanding here about what ±e auteur theory actually claims, particularly since
the theory itself is so vague at the present time.
First of all, the auteur theory, at least as 1 understand it and now intend to express
it٠ claims neither the gift of prophecy nor the oplion of extracinematic perception.
Directors, evenauteur‰s↑ do not alwaysrun traete form, and ιhe critic can never assume
thatabad directorwill always mģabad film. No, not always,but almost always, and
that is the point. What is a bad director, but a director who has made many bad films?
THE FILM ARTIST
NOTES ON THE AUTEUR THEORY IN 1962
What is the problem then? Simply this: The badness of a director is not necessarily
considered the badness of a film. If Joseph Pevney directed Garbo, Cherkasso¼
Olivier, Belmondo, and HÉt Andersson in The Cherry Oård. the resulting spec~
taele might not be entirely devoid of merit with so many subsidiary auteurs to cover
up for Joe. In fact, with this cast and this literary property|aLumet might be safer than
a Welles. The realities of casting apply to directors as well as to actors, but the auteur
theory would demand the gamble with Welles, if he were willing.
Marlon Brando has shown us that a film can be made without a director. Indeed,
One-Eyed Jacks is more entertaining than many films with directors. A directorconscious critic would find it difficult to say anything good or bad about direclion that
is nonexistent. One can talk here about photography, editing, acting, but not direction.
The film even has personality, but, like The Longest Day and Mutiny on the Bounty, il
is a cipher dkectorially. Obviously, the auteur theory cannot possibly cover every
vagrant charm of the cinema. Nevertheless, the first premise ofthe auteur↑h∞ryisk
technical competence of a director as a criterion of value. A badly directed or an undi∙
rected film has no importance in a critical scale of values, but one can make interest・
ing conversation about the subject, the script, the acting, the color, the photography,
[he editing, the music, the costumes, the decor, and so forth. That is the nature of the
medium. You always get more for your money than mere art. Now, by the auteur the■
ory, if a director has no technical competence, no elementary flair for the cinema, he
is automatically cast out from the panteon of directors. A great director has to be at
least a good director. This is true in any art. What constitutes directorial talent is more
difficult to define abstractly. There is less disagreement, however, on this first level of
the auteur theoợ than there will be later.
The second premise of the auteur theory is the distinguishable personality of the
director as a criterion of value. Over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain
recurrent characteristics of style, which serve as his signature. The way a film looks
and moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels. This
is an area where American directors are generally superior to foreign directors*
Because so much of the American cinema is commissioned, a direci0F is forced to
express his personality ιhrough the visual treatment of material rather than through
the literary content of the material. A Cukor, who works with all sorts of pr
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
