How to Recognize an Auteur
What They Don’t Say in Film School
![]()

Prototypical auteur Sir Alfred Hitchcock
The notion of an “auteur” filmmaker began as a way of grouping and academically appreciating films based on the oeuvre of prominent creatives who, though working within the restrictions of assigned genres and scripts under the old studio system, nevertheless succeeded in imposing a distinctive sensibility. The intent was to validate film as an autonomous art form capable of maestro-driven, original film stories in contrast with the stale adaptations of the French “Tradition of Quality.” So besides directors, the original Auteur Theory also could include luminary producers (e.g. Walt Disney, George Lucas), an occasional screenwriter of prominence (e.g. Neil Simon, David Mamet), and even movie star-directors (e.g. Orson Welles, Clint Eastwood).
An auteur was any outstanding filmmaker who could blow away the stuffy boredom of convention with a breath of fresh cinematic imagination.

(L-R) Hyphenate-auteurs Clint Eastwood, George Lucas, Walt Disney and Orson Welles
Yet for promotional reasons, the auteur concept was quickly co-opted to refer principally to storyteller directors with their own distinctive personal vision. That’s a far more romantic and compelling, but simplistic idea: the film director as Horatio Hornblower, almighty captain of his ship and master of the cinematic seas. It’s also much easier to sell a single “auteur” as part of a film’s ad campaign.
In truth, however, from concept until completion of a motion picture, a good production team often will resemble a professional sports team - with the field plays called sometimes by the team captain (the director), sometimes by the head coach (the producer), and sometimes by the front office (the studio/financier). The producer and the director will function by design as an adversarial check-and-balance on the other’s subjective impulses (i.e. megalomania). Consequently most films actually require a relay race of storytellers who pass the baton through their individual creative imprints at various stages of the filmmaking process.
For example, as pointed out by the late Pauline Kael, Orson Welles’ auteur classic Citizen Kane would have been substantially less remarkable without the unique contributions of co-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz and cinematographer Gregg Toland. Certainly renowned auteur Alfred Hitchcock declined as a filmmaker after the dispersal of his elite production team in 1963 following The Birds.
Mastering the Art of Tarantino
Who’s Afraid of the King of Cool?
Opinion by Paul Maslak
Posted: September 9, 2009
Like fine wine, fine filmmakers get better with age. The more they practice their craft, the steadier and more effective their creative choices. That old practice-makes-perfect bromide is not so hard to understand. Surprisingly, though, sometimes the same holds true for their audiences. The more we watch an evolving filmmaker’s work, the more we appreciate his acquired mastery. I count myself among the latter for the art of Quentin Tarantino.
I admit I’ve come last to the party. But my journey has been difficult.
When Tarantino first appeared on the festival circuit with Reservoir Dogs, I thought he was absurdly overrated: A storyline lifted from Ringo Lam’s City on Fire (Lung fu fong wan), starring Chow Yun-Fat, provided the dramatic chassis upon which to string unending profanity, unwatchable violence, and a denouement with a magic gunshot that could only have hit its target in a bad B movie. Okay, Tarantino had a tiny budget. No reshoots. And didn’t that same magic bullet conclude George Steven’s classic big budget Western Shane in the shootout between Alan Ladd and Jack Palance? To my mind, however, the critics who raved about Reservoir Dogs did so only because it won the Sundance Grand Jury Prize - owing in part to home court insider festival favoritism - and because that trophy intimidated critics into biting their tongues rather than report what they really thought. If Reservoir Dogs had a redeeming moral meaning, I would not have known because I was too incensed by the contrived ugliness of the cinematic experience.





































