Talk:List of film auteurs/Archive 1

Proposed merge
I'm not sure a merge of Auteur and Auteur theory is the best idea - Auteur serves a purpose right now, giving a working definition and a list of directors that work with Auteur theory well. -Seth Mahoney 19:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think the list of directors should be moved to Auteur theory and that article should be expanded (including by an "Auteur theory in America" section) while the article Auteur should be ultimately removed. -User:NYArtsnWords Aug 12, 2005

In order to cut down on redundancy, I vote to (mostly) merge them—leaving only a brief description of an auteur on the Auteur entry with a link to Auteur theory. The history/impact of auteurism should only be in the Auteur theory entry. To that end, I've added information on U.S. auteurism, as requested by NYArtsnWords. --JButler 11:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Auteur Lists
I know that he was strictly a B-movie director, and a controversial one at that, but Edward D. Wood is undoubtedly a prime candidate for inclusion in this list. With his circular, hammy dialogue, indecisive day-night lighting transitions, and constant references to transvestism and angora sweaters, he seems to be well overdue for recognition within this circle.

---Buddy-Rey

Hollywood auteurs should not be sequestered from those of the rest of the world, as if Hollywood somehow takes precedence. In addition, Hawks and Ford (among others) should not be featured there. The list of world auteurs could be expanded indefinitely and to curtail it in order to accomodate the other list is blatant Hollywood-centric posturing. I'll edit soon unless there are objections. --Qwayfe 20:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, John Ford is considered a auteur. I have no idea why Kenneth Brannagh is listed. Where was he called a auteur? Also, the Wachowski Brothers and John Waters? And Rob Zombie has only made two movies, how can he count yet? Whit Stillman and Tony Scott also probably shouldn't be on here. RPGLand2000 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Miranda July from the list of contemporary auteurs. One film does not an Auteur make. User:kjream 12.05, 21 January 2006

New to the page, but how exactly are we defining auteur? Specifically, the distinction between "definitive" and "arguable." As an example, I believe that Carpenter is as clear-cut an auteur as you could ask for, yet he's listed under "arguable." Not getting my panties in a bunch over a slight to one of my favorite directors (ok, maybe a little bit), but what is the requirement for "definitive" status? It seems to me that a single list of arguable auteurs would be best, considering the miriad opinions on different directors. Sorry if this has already been covered here, but I had to speak up. -Shubbell 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this entire section strike you as being a trifle "critic-centric". Shouldn't there be a little more emphasis on the art of making films and a bit less emphasis on the "art of criticism"? R.Taylor

21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I love both of Darren Aronofsky's films. Key word: both. How can he be considered an auteur if the man has only made two films? Not to mention that the directorial esthetics and choices in the two films differs a substantial amount. Any similarities between the two could only be chalked up as speculative until there's a clear consistency. I've removed his name, but if somebody wants to make the argument: go for it. --72.57.230.228 05:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though Joss Whedon has only made 1 film, it is clear to see that through his TV production (Buffy, Angel, Firefly) he has a clear and concise style in both writing and directing. --Superpiccolo 11:10, 24 October 2006 (GMT +10)

There are problems with the list. Of course... first off... this is strictly someone's opinion. Second, it is in direct conflict with some of the "auteurs" own Wiki bios. I'm fairly sure that, for example, George Cukor is described as someone whose oeuvre, while of above average quality and extremely popular, is too diverse for the director to be considered an auteur. Some directors are so talented, for example, that they do an excellent job with each production as if they were invisible. Many directors still believe that putting their own "stamp" on a film is egotism, and that it should stand on its own merits and not as part of the greater body of their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.240.134 (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I have (misguidedly?) taken the latter half of this article and pasted it on the Auteur theory article. I think this may facilitate the eventual removal of this page (Redirect to Auteur theory?). There are still corrections to be made, but I am a strong supporter of non-proliferation of articles. --NYArtsnWords 06:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see Auteur theory redirect to Auteur. It makes more sense (to me) to have a section on auteur theory in the article auteur than to go about explaining auteurs in the article auteur theory.  -Seth Mahoney 19:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Though now that I look at it again, they are both fairly long pages. I vote no merge. -Seth Mahoney 19:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion about redirecting Auteur theory to Auteur (with merging of the bulk of the former into the latter) has merits and would be an easy fix. The problem with "not merging" (in my mind) is that both articles will eventually duplicate material and diverge in subsequent edits, leading ultimately to more confusion. --NYArtsnWords 20:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a good point. I'm staying with no merge for now, but if there is a proposition to do a rewrite that incorporates the two articles more fully, I'd go with that.  -Seth Mahoney 22:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed all discussion of the theory, leaving only the notion of "auteur" and the list of directors here. I am not sure if the following paragraphs which I removed need to be incorporated into Auteur theory, but I include them here. -- NYArtsnWords 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Truffaut condemned certain French directors for adapting classic French literature very strictly. He complained about their "formalism" and how they did not take advantage of the potentials the camera could achieve.  However, he and other critics (including Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, Jacques Rivette, and Éric Rohmer) of the Cahiers du cinéma championed many Hollywood directors (particularly Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks) for their full use of the camera and the cinematic style that was imprinted on all of their films.  In America, film critic Andrew Sarris began an American tradition of auteur criticism.
 * A director may of course be talented without being an auteur; directors such as Michael Curtiz and John Huston were great filmmakers but they are not usually considered auteurs because they did not have a recognisable style that appeared in all their films.
 * In recent years, there has been a backlash against the auteur theory. One reason is the technical aspects of shooting a film.  One person cannot do everything.  In Pauline Kael's review of Citizen Kane, a classic film for the auteur model, she points out how the film involved the talents of co-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz and cinematographer Gregg Toland and would have been hurt without their distinctive ability.  Also, the very people who championed the auteur theory backed away for it.  Godard handed over much creative control to others (most notably Jean-Pierre Gorin) in his later films while, in a twist of irony, Truffaut later films embraced the same formalism he rejected early on in his career.  Also, with costly films like Heaven's Gate, the excesses of auteurism not only created uncreative films, they put studios out of business.
 * However, even with the reevaulation of auteurism, the auteur theory continues to influence new filmmakers to this day."


 * Good work, NYArtsnWords. I think most of the information in these paragraphs from the auteur article are covered in the auteur theory article. Hence, I think they may be deleted. --JButler 11:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

re:Cleanup list
It's touching that contributors are revising this entry to include filmmakers they feel deserve notice for their personal style. However, the choice of format for this page, which has lead to rampant inclusivity with minimal explication, hampers its usefulness. This entry should provide an overview of directors whose oeuvres have merited study or attention for bearing the unique stamp of their creators. To limit subjectivity, names should be backed by proof of an auteur treatment. Otherwise, you are just left with a list of masters of cinema or great directors (and some, to be sure, not so great).

By analogy (and this is some analogy), this entry could take the structure of Parade Magazine's "The World's 10 Worst Dictators" as a starting point; the former succeeds by providing a brief definition of dictator, followed by names of leaders and reasons for their relevance. An expert would help: it's not enough to merely list "who the Devil made it", as conventional wisdom would tell us the devil's in the details. Jonathan F 02:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Two more things: I'm disappointed that paragraph two on the main page changes the meaning of auteur from that given in the auteur theory article without sourcing its statements. It not only reads like the opinion of its writer, but it encourages the subjectivity of this entry. However, I am content (aren't you glad?!) with this page not being merged with auteur theory as the latter can expound on "auteur theorists" while this one, well, see above. Jonathan F 04:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder who has called Robert Rodriguez, Richard Linklater, and Mamoru Oshii 'auteurs', especially when compared to people like Theo Angelopoulos, Abbas Kiarostami, or Werner Herzog. I believe the whole criteria for inclusion into the lists is wrong - maybe if the directors were sorted by artistic current (i. e., 'auteurs from the French or Iranian New Wave Movement' for example), we would have an auteur page with at least a semblance of credibility. Mexican cinema fan.


 * An auteur is any director with a recognisable style. That's true of Rodriguez, Linklater and Oshii. Why do you think they are not appropriate? The Singing Badger 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

R. You could say that about plenty of filmmakers (like Istvan Tzabó, Jan Troell and Arturo Ripstein, who as far as I can tell, are not on the list). Shouldn't we have a source criteria for including people as auteurs? Otherwise it pretty much turns out like a list of everyone's favourite filmmakers.


 * Personally, I think the list shoulds simply be enormous, that's all it can be. But maybe it could be narrowed down by limiting it to directors who have had books written about them. That would 'prove' they are considered auteurs by experts in the field, rather than random Wikipedia users. Does that sound good? The Singing Badger 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good for the most part, but maybe the criteria could be expanded to include other kinds of sources, like TV shows or Internet cinema magazines. I believe the list would be pretty close to what we have now, but if we find out too many popular filmmakers are left out, perhaps we can create a page or section named 'popular filmmakers designed as auteurs by Wikipedia users'. That would satisfy both sides, unless I'm being the only obnoxious one here. :) By the way, sorry about the signature, but I haven't registered yet.

R. Aside: Not sure why Hollywood deserves a separate category, either, since as I see it, the auteur theory was a sort of manifesto against industrial-commercial cinema. Mexican film fan.


 * The original auteur theory was not a manifesto against Hollywood, it was a manifesto against bourgeois French cinema. It celebrated popular Hollywood directors like Hitchcock and Hughes and defended them from those French critics who looked down on them. In addition, Hollywood today is far more open to the auteur theory than it was in the 50s, hence people as diverse as Terrence Malick, Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick and David Fincher can flourish there. (By the way, you can sign your name, with a date, by typing four tildes: ~ ) The Singing Badger 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I`m not saying that Hollywood filmmakers should not be on the list. What I meant is that I don't believe there is real reason for differentiating between 'Hollywood' and 'non-Hollywood' auteurs in this article (unless the theory itself uses the differentiation for some purpose). What's the point, really? Why not simply include them all as 'auteurs' regardless of their affiliation with a commercial circuit? 201.129.145.23 02:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Mexican film fan


 * Well, I definitely agree with that. I can't see why there's any need for differentiation at all. The Singing Badger 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Powell & Pressburger
How can Powell and Pressburger be considered to be a single "author" of their films? Apart from their being two of them, they always said that film-making was a collaborative art and that the end result was as much due to all the people they worked with (cast & crew) as to anything that they did. SteveCrook 09:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My 3-point plan to give the list some criteria and integrity
The Singing Badger 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove division by country: it's too complicated for people like Hitchcock and Polanski done, kept country info for now, even though it's clearly simplistic
 * 2) Include lifespan, nationality, and areas where they worked, e.g. Roman Polanski (1899-1980), Polish-French, makes films in Europe and USA
 * 3) For each director, include a reference to at least one published study of the director's work as a auteur. If such a study cannot be found, the director may not yet be regarded as an auteur and should not be on the list.

Additional Suggestions and Requests
(after doing some work on the page)
 * Alphabetize - This entry is useless if we have a random list of unorganized names going on here.
 * Broadway Directors - Unless they also have a cinematic body of work - films, they don't fit the definition.
 * Criteria - I may try some cleanup, including removal of some of my own adds. By general uses of the term, an auteur is a filmmaker with a sizable body of work (not TV, not writers, not theatrical directors).  Ideally, this would be an individual who wrote and directed (and potentially acted in) their own work - the uniform POV resultant would offer a personal aesthetic theory and personalized worldview that could be located as spread through a body of work.  Being popular, hip, prolific, obscure, esoteric or extremely unusual isn't necessarily any automatic qualifier; there must be some worked out thinking consistent to several films on display as well.  This is an encyclopedia, not a newsgroup; things have to be authoritative, researched, clear, and within accepted boundaries, or the article has no reason for being.
 * Geography - If someone fits those criteria, they fit, regardless of how easy it is to find their work in the local chain video store.
 * Lists - No lists after a filmmaker's name; anyone interested can click a name and get the same info - it's a redundancy and it makes the page look sloppy.
 * Red links - don't add, or get rid of them if you find any, unless you are prepared to also create a referenced, encyclopedia-standard entry for the filmmaker in question.
 * References - They aren't just for "proof that an auteur truly is an auteur: they are also a valuable tool for further research, and a good reference for any reader that would want to create a library of their own. This perhaps goes without saying, but studies of the work of many filmmakers can be hard to track down (especially true with Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Latin American auteurs - which I'm in the process of adding and referencing); having the info all in one place would be a 2nd valuable resource for this page, and a good reason for preserving and maintaining this as something other than a fan list.
 * Screenwriters: Please, not unless the also have features, and that body of work fits the definition of auteur. I've gotten rid of the ones I've found.
 * Television People: No.  Deleted some of these as well.
 * Underground, Exploitation, B-Movies: Do they fit? What are some other opinions on this?  John Waters, Ed Wood, & Herschell Gordon Lewis all specialized in a very different ind of film from the likes of Fellini, Bergman, Satyajit Ray, Kurosawa; but they do fit the definition pretty precisely in most ways, and their influence has crept into more acclaimed filmmakers: Suzuki, Tarantino, Lynch, Almodovar.  What does everyone think?

Thanks --Davidals 05:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kevin Smith: Any particular reason why he isn't on this list/ His movies are very similar in both thematic elements and style. Add to that, he consistently hires the same actors for many of them, which has, unfortunately, led them to be typecast to some degree. smith does seem to have afairly distinct thematic style, IMHO.... I'm just sayin' Weaponofmassinstruction 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael Mann: Who removed his name from the list? Considering some of the names that apparently "made the cut," there's no way he should have been taken out. I'm putting his name back in.
 * Never mind, he was in there. Just placed after "Mu" even though his last name starts with "Ma." O.K. then.

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu
He is listed under 'G' because Gonzalez is his first surname (you know, as in Speedy Gonzales). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs for more info. Please don't list him under "I" anymore. This is the second time I have to correct this on this page.

Jessica Earley
Does this person exist in film? A quick Google shows nothing. Also, she is listed as "great american". I think this is personalized vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.7.244 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)