The Auteur theory is a theoretical approach that considers the director as the major creative force behind a movie. ‘Auteurs’ infuse films with their singular perspectives and trademark visual styles when translating them from screenplays to the screen. Critics use auteur theory to explore the ways these directors act as authors of their films, sometimes more than the screenwriters themselves, unlike what the opponents of the theory believe.
Being a writer/director myself, I can see reasonability in either sides of the auteur theory debate. I understand the willingness of directors to have a ‘full-control’ over the motion-picture, coming from that very mere concept of ‘art is a reflection of a subjective point of view’. The whole act of creation feels so individualistic by its nature. In other words, we often tend to think deep inside our heads, and sometimes, we decide to ‘share’ what we think. However, looking at films overall, they have a huge sense of collaboration to them. They are made by people to people. No matter how directors try to do ‘everything’ related to a movie from writing to cinematography to editing, the craft is not individualistic anymore the moment this idea is shared to other collaborators, even with their merely technical inputs.
Creative people overall are the products of constant ‘mental’ collaborations they experience in their environments. Our individualistic views are the product of constant mental debates, inspiration, ideas, tastes, moods, influences of others. We are all the films we watched, the books we read, the music we listened to, the pictures we saw, and the memories we made. In that sense, I see the call for ‘individualism’ in filmmaking in the manner of excluding any other party than the ‘directors’ themselves from the creative equation a waisted chance to put the talents of those who ‘share’ similar visions like yours in action to serve the bigger picture, literally .
In my opinion, if the writer is the womb that gives life to the idea, the director is the future that awaits this newly born idea, because the greatest scripts in the history were written to be ‘seen’ not ‘read’. If the directors/writers have the talents and skills to do both roles, why not?, but that should not erase the efforts of people in the other picture departments. Moreover, the control needed from the directors’ end is related to the overall understanding of the ‘vision’. It’s purely about being able to lead, define, accept or decline proposals of other collaborators in the favor of the creative vision. On the other hands, the control needed from the writer’s end is related to the overall understanding of the storyline, character motives, turning points, mood. It’s about the writer’s attempts to preserve the depth and the meaning behind their written scenes. It’s about director’s ability to stay loyal to the well-crafted tale.
Regarding the credit matter, I think the industry promotional practices played a huge role in that clash of creative credits. In MENA region for example, you should be a well-established screenwriter with many successful creations for your name to be known. Your face? Not sure that will ring a bell to anybody (unless you work personally in promoting yourself in social media). If we look deep into the whys, we will realize that the media does not shed enough light on writers mainly because writing itself is not looked at as a job in our societies. I personally struggle sometimes while explaining to some people I meet that I work in creative content development, that I actually make living from telling stories and creating original concepts. For some reason, it sounds ‘too easy’ to be a ‘job’ or to be taken ‘seriously’, unlike the director’s job which is usually presented on set, covered with cameras behind the scenes, and attached directly to famous actors.
AlRaweya الراوية 