The Auteur Theory

I found it interesting that the auteur theory was not so much another method of approaching art, but something of an unconscious style. The individual is the one under scrutiny, and it is a body of work, not simply one piece that is examined. The exploration into the methods that Howard Hawks employed in his films was fascinating. The way he created stories was broad, but what linked them were the motifs. This is the basis of auteur theory and what sets it apart from other art. It is not necessarily what the film itself is trying to say, but what the artist is preoccupied with and expresses through the film, possibly without even realizing it. This is not what I had originally understood the auteur theory to be. This film style survived, as it was said in the reading, because it was indispensable. I believe it was theorized during that early period of cinema, because cinema as we now understand it had been around just long enough for directors to build a body of work and see the pattern of motifs. The auteur theory is something that cannot be dismissed from the cinematic process, nor should it. it can now be seen celebrated in the workds of modern directors such as Tarantino and Scorsese, both of whom have distinctly individual focuses and cinematic styles. Scorsese, I think, would be the most interesting and prevalent modern comparison to the reading's analysis of Howard Hawks. Though he has a body of work that is usually associated with violence or the mafia, he has made vastly different films such as "Kundun" and documentaries like "Shine a Light." The auteur theory allows an organic type of life to continue to run through the film industry, even as it seems that they may be running out of ideas.