The Influence Of The Auteur Theory In America

Before the introduction of the auteur theory to filmmaking, directors were not given the importance they deserved. They were not seen as critical or imperative to the creation and process of filmmaking. Additionally, they were not famous or well-known. Obviously, the actors stole the show. They were forced to follow certain rules of filmmaking in order to create films and not be blacklisted by the filmmaking industry. Essentially, they were not given the credit or freedom they deserved. However, with the introduction of "auteurism," directors began to establish themselves as the authors of their work. They were not just the background anymore. The director began to gain just as much importance as the actor. Directors such as D.W. Griffith,

Oscar Micheaux, and Alfred Hitchcock have not only solidified themselves as great auteurs and directors but have proven that the role of the director is more important than other aspects of cinema cultures.

Of course, the auteur theory did not just sprout out of nowhere.

The auteur theory was originally "an invention of French critics who maintained that directors are to movies what poets are to poems" ("Knockin' on Heaven's Door"). As expected, the auteur theory also made its way to America and had begun its influence on Hollywood. A key person in the influence of the auteur theory in America, Andrew Sarris, expanded upon the ideology as a "novel idea that the director is the sole author of his work, regardless of whatever contribution the writers, producers, or actors may make" ("Knockin' on Heaven's Door"). This ideology, more or less, then began to be subconsciously adopted by both the public and industry. People began ranking directors in hierarchies, differentiating them, analyzing them, and coming to realize each director's distinctive touch. Specifically, people began to do this by seeking out an auteur's "common stylistic traits, formal permutations, and thematic constructs" (Gomery and Pafort-Overduin 182). At the time, though, Hollywood directors still had to stay loyal to the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style, otherwise, they would "be forced out of the system altogether" (182). At the end of the day, however, directors were still able to "thrive within the rigid constraints of the Hollywood studio system, regularly turning out intense, moving films"

(182).

As controversial as D.W. Griffith and his brainchild The Birth of a Nation is, we cannot ignore how much of his "stamp" Griffith put into The Birth of a Nation. "Griffith certainly did emphasize some norms of the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style [in his films] ... [but] never adapted completely to the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style" (70). His failure to adapt completely did lead to his eventual directorial demise, but his auteur vision in The Birth of a Nation, and several of his other films, did exemplify him as a pioneer in auteurism. To go further into detail, Griffith's film first and foremost "voiced his view of the world" through the "power of historical stories" (70). Griffith did this through a variety of methods. For instance, he implemented soft photography and foreground narration in scenes that he felt would be more appropriate with these alterations in place. Surprisingly, other directors began to implement these tactics. As a result, soft photography served to become a standard of the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style. This contribution by Griffith portrays how an aspect of one's auteur vision can be adopted and standardized by other auteurs/directors. Subsequently, directors' unique auteuristic vision began to become more complex. Directors began to implement other director's tactics, thus building a foundation for directors all around. This foundation began to grow, become more complex, and thrive, yet still allow directors to have their own auteuristic vision within their films.

Another example of a director that has pioneered in auteurism in a very odd and unorthodox way is Oscar Micheaux, an African-American author, and filmmaker.

Micheaux became well known in the 1910s for his first book, The Conquest: The Story of a Negro Homesteader, which details his life from a "former slave... [to] running a shoeshine stand and serving as a Pullman train porter on the railroads... to rural South Dakota where he became a homesteader" (Race and Racist Films). Micheaux then received an opportunity to film an adaptation of his book and seized the opportunity. Indeed, Micheaux's book and its cinematic adaptation both became a success. However, what is so unique about Micheaux's auteurism is that Micheaux was quite literally an author before he was a filmmaker. So, when he adapted his book into a film, he constructed a work of art not only based on his book but his first-hand experiences. As a result, Micheaux's film carried and expressed his "prairie roots, querulous personality, and curious racial theories" (Race and Racist

Films).

When compared to D.W. Griffith, however, it may seem like they are foils of each other: Griffith's so-called racist creations versus Micheaux's Race Films. But they are not. Both Griffith and Micheaux shared quite a lot of similarities, both intrinsically and extrinsically. Intrinsically, both were seen as eccentric at the time. Micheaux, in his films, "could ascend to peaks of bizarre excess and then insert unmatching cutaway shots" (Race and Racist Films) while Griffith "never adapted completely to the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style" (Gomery and Pafort-Overduin 70). Extrinsically, both directors' films grappled "with painful socio-cultural issues including rape, lynching, and the complexities of skin color and class" (Race and Racist Films). Of course, their differences set them apart, though. Micheaux created films specifically for black audiences, while Griffith created racist films that provoked a reaction from the NAACP and the black press.

Another example of a director with a unique auteurist vision, from a different era, is the widely acclaimed Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock's films were unique for a variety of reasons: thematics, general editing, sound, etc. However, Hitchcock's films, generally, were distinguished by the way they dealt with "the act of looking at and re-seeing the world" (Gomery and Parfort-Overduin 187).