The Active Auteur

It is one thing for a director to be considered auteur, something we have thoroughly discussed here. Yet is another thing for said auteur to be active in the process, to consciously and continuously flesh out their work in the public eye. And while the term active auteur is surprisingly new to me, the idea seems only too ingrained in the art world. Unlike business or medicine, where creativity and presentation of personal projects are not a regular part of the job, the artist constantly present themself in their work. However, for every valid interpretation of a piece, for every individual reading and unique viewpoint, there come just as many distorted and unintentional evaluations. This is especially evident in film, where layer upon layer of text can be read to fit the expectations and desires of the audience. Naturally, the audience is composed of hoards of viewpoints, each interpreting and reading the film in a myriad of ways. And while many of these may not be incorrect, the also tend to clutter the filmmakers intentions and can at times dampen the effect. We find this especially evident in cases where the visual content can be challenging and becomes point for discussion thereby ignoring its meaning.

Enter the active auteur, the film author whose participation after the film becomes just as important as his participation in making the film. We have heard countless horror stories about directors who are forced to alter their films because of studio demands or ratings approval, yet it is few and farther between that we hear about the incorrectly evaluated and mis-criticised works. Obviously, the battle between critic and filmmaker will rage until the end of time, evidence of the personal position of interpretation. However, the active filmmaker encourages the viewers to identify with the reading that was intended in the making of the film. It only comes naturally that one who pours their time and energy into a creative and collaborative work of art would want it to be received correctly. Yet at the same time, art is such a personal exploration for both the maker and the viewer. Certainly no director wants to cheat their audience out of experiencing the film as their own. (Ok, we could find a few) And of course, anyone making films does so with the intention that they will be seen, thus finalizing the process.

So then we must ask ourselves, does the given that films are made for an audience negate the desire of the director in helping their reading? In other words, once the film is out, should it be given over entirely to the people it was made for regardless of what afflictions it might garner in the process? Or has the filmmaking process not stopped once the final cut is ready? If this is the case, the creative minds behind the work, who are often willing to engage in talk about its making, must be present and available to present it.

So if we then get more specific, to the auteur whose films bear certain similarities that we have identified and observed, where do we find him and how do we identify him? First, the very notion of the auteur, especially in the self-conscious immersion of the theory today, comes hand in hand with someone who is engaged in their filmmaking practice and would very likely follow through from idea to final evaluation. However, suppose a relatively uninvolved director simply made films, all of the being recognizable in authorship, yet refrained from pulling the oeuvre together as a whole anywhere but the screen. Such a person would either be a recluse or be so incredibly busy that quantity vastly trumped quality. Thus we arrive at a very interesting place in our definition of auteur. For some individuals, this authorship would transcend the screen and arrive in the real world. Of course, this is where it started, the idea of auteur as directorial presence; filmic personality and signature.