Auteurship

This week you were to watch three movies by a particular director and to write a 500 word essay discussing how the three works you chose exhibit the common themes or other elements that are the attributes of that director as an auteur (or, alternatively, you could argue they are not an auteur or that the term "auteur" should not be applied in the critical discussion of film. See the syllabus for the list of directors

I chose to watch the films of Sally Potter this week. The films of hers that I was able to get a copy of and watch were The Man Who Cried, Orlando, and Yes.

I always have a hard time categorizing a director in a category like an "auteur" simply because I've always thought of cinema as a collaboration. Making a film like these one for instance, you can't accomplish making them on your own. Making a film can never really be a solo medium of the arts in the same way that writing a novel can be. Although, if you think about it, even writing is not a solo one either if you have an editor, publishers, or you can even take into consideration the people who taught the author what they know. No one really works alone or without some sort of influence from another individual or individuals.

Sally Potter behind the scenes on Orlando

The only way I think I'd be comfortable with maybe categorizing a film director is because they are ultimately responsible for steering the direction and having final say over the piece. I would have to say that being an "auteur" doesn't mean that you're working alone and the credit is all yours, but rather that you're the one who takes responsibility for the work, the vision if you will. It's the director's vision that all the other people working on the production are contributing their work to. Even if the director comes onto a project where there's already a finished script, they still can "put their own stamp" on the piece and make drastic changes if that's the way they see the film. This can be done with simple things like where they place a camera in a scene, the music and sound, the locations where things are shot, or even shaping an actor's performance. These decisions can be an invisible sort of auteurship.

Orlando (1992) - Orlando, a young nobleman, is ordered by Queen Elizabeth I to stay alive forever. He miraculously does just that and experiences centuries of British history.

The Man Who Cried (2000) - A young Russian refugee traveling to America in search of her missing father, falls in love with a gypsy horseman.

Yes (2004) - Story about a passionate love affair between an American woman and a Middle-Eastern man, and the conflicts that rise between them both religious, political, and sexual.

In the case of Sally Potter's films, after watching all three I can see how her vision for the films "outshines" the other aspects, the stories that she tells are definitely not traditional in the sense of the word. My favorite was Orlando simply because it has the most intriguing story idea about a man that's ordered by his Queen to live forever, and he does somehow. The Man Who Cried seemed to be the piece most like auteurship to me though.The entire film centered around Christina Ricci's character as the female lead/heroine. The entire film was about longing and loss, with Ricci's character being personified as loneliness.