Auteur Theory: David Lynch

What is an auteur? Well blame the French for this. Cinema critics of the 1950s were tired of the conveyer belt approach that studio directors had taken towards filmmaking. There were no distinguishable characteristics by each director - just formulaic, commercial pap which was churned out time and time again.

Auteur critics wanted a new wave of cinema and argued the camera should be an instrument for art, just as the brush is for the artist. As a instrument, the camera should provide artistic integrity; the auteur should demonstrate technical mastery, a distinguished personality and provoke an interior meaning to their work. As such a group of select auteur directors deemed to meet these standards were born: Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock and in recent times Kubrick, Lynch, Tarrantino and Wes Anderson.

This might seem strange to today’s cinema audiences, after all many film lovers could name their favourite director - suggesting that most films have a distinct look and feel. But a director like Stephen Spielberg is not an auteur (debatable) - even though his work is distinct and has repeated themes it arguably does not stir an interior meaning. Also, his work is commercial successful suggesting a popularist approach to filmmaking and a willingness to be influenced by the financial ambitions of the studio. Don’t get me wrong, I love Spielberg films, I’m just playing devils advocate.

An auteur might be a critic’s dream, but what are the limitations? Withstanding artistic integrity and vision in an industry which inherently relies on a team (sometimes an army) of people to produce. Keeping their unique stamp on the finished work without turning out the same old recognisable tricks. And finally, the medium. Producing a cinematic masterpiece is reliant on the theatre – the sound system, the oversized screen, the darkness, and the all-encompassing sensory experience. Once taken into the home, arguably, the film is no longer the work of an auteur.

Critics seem to deem the cinema as the pinnacle and playground of auteur work, and assign only directors to be worthy of this title (not producers or cinematographers) so can TV create auteurs who are producers? Or is this a ‘lesser’ medium not worthy of true, artistic and critical acclaim?

Well, we discussed today how a director like Lynch consistently manages to keep a distinct identity within his work. In an interview he described the film making process as an abstract cloud of ideas. He maintains the vision and everyone working with him subscribes to this - they can makes suggestions (which might be included in the work) but their suggestions only work as part of this wider cloud of ideas which is gently floating through the process with him at the centre. Nice and direct.

As a trans media artist Lynch manages to keep a “lynchian” tone to all his work – it’s always distinctly his whether it’s TV, film or painting. He uses repeated metaphors (red curtains, mystery sinister figures), music (industrial, ambient soundtracks) and a unique directorial style (camera angles, disjointed narrative) to make this stamp.

We watched a 1-minute short Lynch created to celebrate the 100^th Anniversary of the Lumiere Camera. 60 seconds of continuous filming with no edits, no sound (other than a dubbed on soundtrack) Lynch still manages to display extraordinary technical skill, style and authorship. The mark of a genuine auteur – to not have to rely on any one medium or additional people! It was a magical, engaging and eerie piece which even not knowing it was Lynch, you could make an educated guess by the tone and feel.

Sadly we were shown a “making of” clip which had filmed Lynch filming the short. Now, I’m not a fan of behind the scenes sections or even DVD director’s commentary to be honest. I prefer Roland Barthes’s “Death of the Author” approach to cinema going – I don’t need a director to tell me what their vision was, or how they created it – I don’t want it to influence my experience as ultimately it doesn’t matter what the director intended, it’s what I took away from it that counts.

The strange thing about films, which is unlike authorship in novels, is that with a book you don’t get the back-story – there isn’t an introduction which explains how Thomas Hardy wrote Tess of the D’Urbervilles or what was happening socially at the time to influence him (well sometimes). Good thing too, it’s really got nothing to do with how you interpret the book, the story, the narrative. This is why I like Lynch, he refuses to help out the audience, he doesn’t offer explanation, he doesn’t care if you draw conclusions or flap about in frustration. I watched Mulholland Drive for the first time 2 days ago and it’s still going round and round in my head, that’s why I think it’s an auteur film – anyone got any explanations they want to share, then I’ll pleased to hear what you got from it!

Week 5 - The Non Filmstar Filmstar Continues...

So what other techniques have directors employed to keep the audiences' focus on the narrative and not on the actors? Well, how about cramming as many stars as you can into one film so the audience is overwhelmed with stars? Robert Altman's film Gosford Park (2001) reads as a veritable who's who of British stars: Steven Fry, Maggie Smith, Richard E Grant, Helen Mirren, Michael Gambon, Clive Owen, Emily Watson, Alan Bates etc the list just goes on and on. And don't be fooled to think the bigger stars are "upstairs" as Helen Mirren rules the "downstairs" while Countess of Trentham (Maggie Smith) is indebted to her maid, Mary played by Kelly McDonald. And that's part of the joke, neither upstairs or downstairs can survive without each other and the interesting power plays that occur between this hierarchical household.

The opening scene of Gosford Park is brilliant, Constance (Maggie Smith) slips into her Bentley (almost unnoticed by the audience) and on route she encounters another party on their way to the house. Matinee idol Ivor Novello and his friend Hollywood producer Morris Weissman, clearly offended that someone of such low rank should presume to speak to her she cuts short the pleasantries to continue on her way. Her maid Mary (Kelly McDonald) plays the role of the audience, she is oblivious to social rank and in awe of this "star" being in such close proximity.

Finally it’s back to subversive genius Stanley Kubrick and his 1968 masterpiece, 2001 A Space Odyssey. Set in the distant future (eight years ago) a team of astronauts are on spaceship Discovery One bound for Jupiter with the ship’s on-board computer HAL 9000, addressed as "Hal" and voiced by Douglas Rain, who has human-like intelligence and runs most of the ship’s operations. The lead characters are Dr. David Bowman played by Keir Dullea and Dr. Francis Poole played by Gary Lockwood. Lockwood and Dullea? Who? Exactly.

Kubrick knew the power of the “star” that’s why he chose to use actors almost unrecognisable to the audience, that way the force of the narractive, the action, the protagnist could be a faceless computer. Brave move. Kubrick manipulated stars for other films: The Shining built on Jack Nicholson’s already proven reputation for being “crazy” and Eyes Wide Shut seeks to subversivly emasculate the ultimate “lead man” Tom Cruise.

It’s an interesting tactic: either a director can bamboozle an audience with too many film star’s for them to focus on, or they can remove them entirely. I’ve always enjoyed films where I don’t recognise the lead. The best example was when I first saw the Motorcycle Diaries, I had no idea who Mexican actor Gael García Bernal, and Argentine actor Rodrigo de la Serna were so I could easily accept they were Che and Alberto Granado and this in turn meant I could comfortably believe the actions and narrative of the film without thinking, isn’t Bernal convincing as Che? However, with Che Part 1 and 2 released and starring Benicio Del Toro I think I won’t have the same response… isn’t he that lawyer from Fear and Loathing?

Week 5 - Jaws The Non Filmstar Filmstar

Week 4 is epic, so I'm holding off writing about that until I've got time to do it justice. However Week 5 was much more easy to digest.

This week we talked about films which were actively anti-film star. I'm not talking indie films, world cinema or foreign films, I'm talking about regular block buster movies which deliberately chose to use actors who were unknown. Sam asked us to name films which had taken this status and to honest it was difficult to do. I've seen many quirky independent films which, probably through cost restraints chose to make the "story the star" rather than hire the big names, but I couldn't think of any mainstream cinema hits. Hmmm.
The first example we watched was Spielberg’s Jaws (1975), the films producers (in agreement from Spielberg) Zanuck and Brown decided to ignore the pleas from Charlton Heston to play Police Chief Martin Brody and instead pick Roy Scheider (sadly passed away this year if anyone caught the BAFTAs). We watched the "you're going to need a bigger boat scene" and studied the way the actors appear on screen. Schieder doesn't demonstrate any of the stylised movements of typical "stars" of the era - he's positively clumsy and shark hunter Quint (Robert Shaw) mocks him in the dialogue. The three men (Brody, Quint and Hooper) have a similar presence on screen - even though Quint is the obvious leader (upwards shots of him in the crows nest signify this) he calls Brody "chief" over and over to re-iterate the audience who the lead is. Can you imagine if Charlton Heston had been the lead? How many close ups? How much over stage presence he would have had? Because, let's face it, Jaws is the real star and as much as I would have liked to see him try and attack Charlton Heston, it just seems weird now.