> some people are more partial to 'auteur theory' than others
Why not ask who are the top ten auteurists and anti-auteurists in this newsgroup?
I would nominate myself as about #23 on the auteurist list, at best. Like a lukewarm agnostic who can't commit, I have so many exceptions, footnotes, uncertainties and yes-buts to my belief in the theory that my status as a card-carrying auteurist has long since been revoked.
Is there value to studying films grouped by director? Sure, often. Just like studying by genre; doesn't mean genre is the overwhelming be-all and end-all force driving the making of films, but it makes study managable and frequently enlightening. So I have just downgraded the theory to wishy-washy nebulousity. OTOH there are clearly Welles films, Fords, Capras, Hawks, Boettichers, etc. These men are artists every bit as much as the greatest painters who single-handedly produced their art (or supervised the brushes of their employees, students or apprentices). OTOH, despite immense bodies of exceptional films, are there Curtiz or Bacon films? Probably not; there are literally dozens of films by each of these guys where I simply can't find them at all. But I have a hard time understanding how, working under the same system and with the same craftsmen as dozens of other directors, they were so successful if they are not the artists primarily responsible for the product. I've got so many other hands on this issue that I've just downgraded myself to #42 on the list. No commitment.
|
