The American Cinema

Collecting to the Core — The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968 by Mark Emmons (Associate Dean of Public Services, College of University Libraries & Learning Sciences, University of New Mexico; Film Studies Editor, Resources for College Libraries) <[email protected]> Column Editor: Anne Doherty (Resources for College Libraries Project Editor, CHOICE/ACRL) <[email protected]> Column Editor’s Note: The “Collecting director is important because making a film a tendency than a theory, more a mystique to the Core” column highlights monographic is a collaborative effort often restricted by than a methodology, more an editorial policy works that are essential to the academic li- the commercial nature of the movie industry. than an aesthetic procedure.”12 The bulk of brary within a particular discipline, inspired “The auteur theory values the personality of his book consists of a hierarchical ranking of by the Resources for College Libraries bib- a director precisely because of the barriers to (mostly) American directors and their works, liography (online at http://www.rclweb.net). its expression.”6 a chronological list of films, and a directorial In each essay, subject specialists introduce Pauline Kael, a movie reviewer for The index. His flamboyantly named categories and explain the classic titles and topics that New Yorker based in San Francisco, was included directors in and just outside of the continue to remain relevant to the undergrad- highly critical of Sarris and auteur theory. pantheon, directors whose works were too uate curriculum and library collection. Dis- In a 1963 article originally published in Film esoteric or ephemeral for them to be consid- ciplinary trends may shift, but some classics Quarterly (reprinted in her collection I Lost ered great, directors who were too serious or never go out of style. — AD It at the Movies), “Circles and Squares: Sar- merely likable, comedic directors, and direc- ris and Joy,” she addressed each of the three tors who were too early in their careers to be premises of the auteur theory expounded by thoroughly evaluated (see Figure 1). Each ifty years ago, Andrew Sarris published Sarris in his original article.7 She argued category described what makes the directors The American Cinema: Directors and that expression and style are more important auteurs and lists their films, highlighting the 1 FDirections, 1929-1968. The book was than technical competence, that the fact that a most worthy. an expansion of an article he had written for viewer can distinguish the personality of the The auteur theory was widely embraced by the journal Film Culture entitled “Notes on director is secondary to the value of an indi- many. For many a movie lover and film student, 2 the Auteur Theory in 1962.” Sarris claimed vidual film, and that cinema is not at all about The American Cinema served as a canon and a that directors are authors of the films they interior meaning and the tension between viewing guide. Cinephiles sought opportunities make, that they should be evaluated on the the director’s personality and material. As a to watch listed movies. Art houses screened entire body of their work, and that judgment result of these premises, Kael maintained that films. Critics analyzed filmmakers and films should rest on their technical competence, auteur critics often glorified trash. She then with an auteur lens. Film schools taught classes distinguishable personality, and the personal explained her own views as a film critic. She on auteur theory and on directors. University style that emerges from the tension between believed that “art is an expression of the hu- and popular presses published academic books their personality and material. man experience.”8 Disparaging of formulaic about directors. Conversations abounded. Crit- Sarris did not originate the idea of the critics who applied a single approach such as icism of Sarris within these circles accepted auteur. He spent some formative years in auteur theory, she considered herself a “plu- the basic premise of directors as authors and Paris in the early 1960s and was inspired by ralist” drawing eclectically and judiciously instead focused on niceties, nitpicking who the ideas of a loose alliance of French film from “the best standards and principles from belonged in the pantheon and complaining that critics and filmmakers writing in Cahiers du various systems of ideas.”9 In contrast to Sar- he included too many commercial directors and Cinéma that included André Bazin and Jean ris, Kael wanted critics to judge the individ- virtually no women. Luc Godard. He was particularly influenced ual movie rather than consider the director’s The auteur theory was also rejected by by the French director François Truffaut who entire corpus. Her riposte was the beginning many. One major criticism was that auteur introduced the idea of politique des auteur of a series of ongoing debates in print and in theory unfairly privileged the director over with his “polemical stance” behind the term person that attracted followers other creative artists. Detractors argued that auteur.3-4 The polemic behind the politique who identified as Paulettes or movie making is a collaborative art, with mean- des auteur was to favor some directors Sarristes. ingful contributions from studios, producers, and to disapprove of others Sarris doubled down when writers, cinematographers, sound designers, based on the style of their he published The American set designers, editors, actors, and more. C. films. As a film critic in New Cinema in 1968. In his intro- Paul Sellors, in his book Film Authorship: York City for Film Culture duction, he briefly explained Auteurs and Other Myths, made a typical and a movie reviewer for the that he compiled the book argument, proposing that his book’s purpose Village Voice, Sarris used his to guide film students and was to “provide further reasons to question the platform to popularize the idea then expounded at length automatic assignment of authorship to a film’s of the director as auteur in the on “the absence of the most director.”13 He traced the idea of the director United States. elementary academic tra- as author back to romantic French notions of At the root of the auteur the- dition in cinema.”10 To help authorship and explored theoretical concepts ory is the idea that the personality fill this void, he delved more of authorship around narrator and narrative of the best directors shine through deeply into the idea of the auteur to derive his definition of “film authorship as in their films. The result is that the audience in his introductory chapter “Toward a Theo- collective intentional action.”14 Modern auteur will recognize directors’ styles by the recur- ry of Film History.” In his afterword, “The theory has evolved to assign creative responsi- ring plots, themes, motifs, and images in their Auteur Theory Revisited,” first added to the bility to filmmakers other than the director, but films. WhileSarris also focused on technical 1977 edition, Sarris addressed the criticism: still focuses on individuals most responsible for competence in his original article, he centered “Still, if I had to do it all over again, I would the style and expression in a film rather than his arguments almost exclusively on person- reformulate the auteur theory with a greater upon a collective author. ality in The American Cinema: “The strong emphasis on the tantalizing mystery of style The auteur theory was also seen as irrel- director imposes his own personality on a than on the romantic agony of the artists.”11 evant by many. Instead of focusing on the film; the weak director allows the personality He concluded his afterword by conceding author and the value of the work, film theorists 5 of others to run rampant.” The strength of a that “auteurism is and always has been more continued on page 34 Against the Grain / February 2019 <http://www.against-the-grain.com> 33 Collecting to the Core from page 33 became more devoted to poststructuralist and ideological perspectives. Poststructuralists read cinema with semiotic, psychoanalytic, lit- erary, and Marxist lenses from the perspective of the viewer, disconnecting and dismantling the meaning of the film from authorial intent. Ideological theorists with Marxist, feminist, postcolonial, or queer approaches interpreted and critiqued film with the aim of challenging dominant power structures and narratives. Neither epistemology found any relevance in auteur theory. Nonetheless, despite the passage of time and the arrival of competing perspectives, auteur theory has persisted. Whether this is due to romantic notions about authors, popular beliefs about how movies are made, or a genuine conviction that directors shape films more than any other creative talent, conversations about cinema often revolve around the director. This fact is reflected in Resources for College Libraries, where nearly nine in ten works listed in the “Filmmakers” section are about directors. This is not due to editorial viewpoint, but is a reflection of the published academic scholarship (though it is worth not- ing that the popular press publishes numerous books about actors in addition to directors). Andrew Sarris and his book, The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968, played a significant role in the development of the idea that the director is the author of a film. This influential work remains a relevant and consequential part of every academic library film studies collection. Endnotes 1. Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema: Directors and Directions, 1929-1968. 1st Da Capo Press edition. New York: Da Capo Press, 1996.* 2. Sarris, Andrew. “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962.” Film Culture 27 (Winter 1962/63): 1-8. 3. Truffaut, François. “A Certain Tenden- cy of the French Cinema.” [1954] In Movies and Methods. Edited by Bill Nichols. Berke- ley: University of California Press, 1976.

Load more