In 1895, at a fashionable café in Paris, the public screening of the world’s first film took place. This ‘motion picture’, as it was then called, was La Sortie de l'Usine Lumière à Lyon (Exit from the Lumière factory in Lyon). It was made by two brothers, Auguste and Louise Lumiere and consisted of a single scene, 46 seconds long, showing workers exiting a factory after work. Neither the audience nor the Lumiere brothers probably realized the historical importance of the occasion; they were taking part in the birth of the most modern of art forms- the cinema.
The next few decades saw many advances in the technical as well as the aesthetic aspects of cinema. The art of editing made it possible to join images to tell a story. Other processes led to the attachment of sound to the images. Another few years and the ability to color these images was available. With these advancements, the audience’s interest in the medium also steadily increased. The process of film making and viewing became a profitable industry and business.
 |
Hollywood was at the forefront
of the technical
development of
cinema during the 1920s and 30s
|
The birth of Hollywood and its subsequent meteoric rise, led to a new way of making films- the ‘Studio System’. In simple terms, studios were companies that hired artists under contracts, put in the money required for the film projects and owned the distribution rights to market these films. Although a necessary outcome of the growing financial demands required to make films, the studio system led to an atmosphere of creative impotency where new ideas and techniques were deemed financially risky and the established norms of ‘what sells’ were adhered to strictly.
Meanwhile, cinema in Europe found it hard to develop a vision of its own and most of the films created were a shadow of their American and British counterparts. In France, the screen writers were considered the main force behind the creative process. Most films were adaptations of famous novels- an art form which was still considered inherently superior to the immediacy of the visual medium. Amidst this atmosphere of the cinema having become an industry in Hollywood and an acquiescent servant to the novel in Europe, a reactionary movement started among the film critics in France. This movement aimed to set forth a new way of looking at films which would lead cinema to be seen as a unique art form that had all the attributes to make it comparable with the other established art genres such as music and literature. This theory would eventually come to be known as The Auteur Theory of Cinema. The central precept of this theory was that the main creative force (or the ‘author’) behind the film should be the director. He should not only have the technical knowledge of the various aspects of film making but more importantly his films should envisage a personal artistic experience.
 |
Andre Bazin: Founder of Cahiers Du
Cinema revolutionized film theory and
criticismin Europe during the 1950s.
|
One of the earliest essays which led to the initial formalization of this theory was written by the film critic Alexandre Astruc in 1948. In this seminal essay he coined the term camera-stylo or the camera-pen. By this term he meant that the director should use the camera like a writer uses his pen; to develop a language- visual in this case- through which he would be able to express even the most abstract thoughts and feelings. Astruc went as far as to say that the ideas of the time could only be expressed in the language of the cinema and not in the more popular genre of the novel.
In 1951, Astruc’s close friend the film critic Andre Bazin founded the French film magazine Cahiers Du Cinema. Over the next few years the influence of this magazine gradually increased in film circles around the world. The magazine set about to redefine the tenets of film theory and criticism bringing it more in line with Astruc’s ideas of the cinema-pen. Bazin in his influential essay, “The Evolution of the Film Language”, traced the history of cinema to its current state and cited the need to usher in a new era where the film would represent a director's personal vision, rooted in his subjectivity and self-consciousness.
 |
Francois Truffaut: The French film critic
led the
attack on the French cinema’s
infatuation with ‘writers’
|
Among the various critics writing for the Cahiers was Francois Truffaut who became the fiercest proponent of the auteur theory in France. Written for Cahiers, Truffaut’s essay “A certain tendency in French cinema”, scathed at the focus of French cinema on the screen writer and the resulting inability of this cinema to rise to the level of other art forms. Truffaut noted that many directors, even those working under the constraining atmosphere of the studio system of Hollywood, were able to leave a personal mark on their films. This could be in the themes or the more formal aspects of film making but their emphasis on certain aspects led to an indelibly personal product. He also observed that most of these directors either completely or partially wrote their own films. For Truffaut this was true cinema and he advocated that all film makers should aspire for this achievement in their work.
The auteur theory initially developed in France but gained its final form across the continent in the works of the American film critic Andrew Sarris. In his 1962 essay, “Notes on the Auteur Theory”, Sarris clearly defined and furthered the theory. He stated that over a group of films a director must exhibit recurrent characteristics of style which serve as a personal signature and the way a film “looks” should have a relationship with how a director “feels”. In his subsequent works Sarris used the theory to form a canon of great film directors and classified them from mere technicians to true auteurs who are able to express their inner lives on the canvas of the screen using a personalized visual language.
 |
Alfred Hitchcock: The Hollywood film maker
was
considered a true auteur for his
inimitable cinema
|
The auteur theory generated great debate over the coming years. Its opponents cited film as a collaborative effort which needed the input of many trained professionals to attain its final shape. They deemed the theory’s elevation of the director above everybody else as disrespectful to the artistic abilities of all the other persons involved in the project. However, most would not deny the central role of the director in coordinating the various aspects of film making and hence possibly having the most bearing on what a film ultimately looks and feels like. The proponents of the auteur theory would describe this role of the director as similar to that of the conductor of an orchestra. He may not be able to play all the instruments but he needs to combine the individual parts to create a harmonious arrangement that is able to express a coherent meaning.
With the gradual decline of the studio system, a new breed of independent film makers, with unique personal takes on various themes and genres, came to the forefront in Hollywood. In Europe various movements such as Italian Neorealism and the French New wave led to an unprecedented evolution of cinema in terms of its artistic possibilities. The auteur theory gradually assimilated in the mainstream discourse on films and became one of the many valid ways in analyzing a film and discussing its merits and demerits. Even today when people refer to Midnight in Paris as the ‘new Woody Allen film’ or wonder when the next ‘Quentin Tarantino film’ will be released, they are actually using the auteur lexicon.
The auteur theory served an important role in the evolution of cinema by releasing it from a period of creative sterility and continues to provide film aficionados with another facet to appreciate and enjoy cinema as an art form.
-ZAIDAN IDREES
