Who's the Best?

It had been the tendency of the Cahiers du Cinema writers to rate the directors they admired. Such a policy continued with Andrew Sarris after introducing the auteur theory to America. He argued that such a rating system was but a mere extension from the other arts, where we rate certain artist’s works above that of others. Such a practice, for better or worse, has been implemented for many a year and will undoubtedly continue for some time. Yet I wonder, in modern cinema, where do we place those auteurs whose work is relatively consistent in relation to the director who happens to make a wonderful film? Certainly, as the French filmmakers hailed, a great filmmaker can make a bad film without it damaging his reputation. But it seems more than ever that box office results are the main determinate of who gets money.

Beyond this, though, I question the relevance of any ranking system for today’s cinema. First of all, where does one start? If we based rank on how well a film does in the box office or how many Oscars it gets then we negate the very criteria the Cahiers writers applaud. If we, then, consider only a director’s consistency, then we ignore their popular success, their public approval, their demand as an artist contributing to general society. Yet perhaps this is not of importance. Perhaps, the fact that ranks will always contain discrepancies can dispel our need for rankings entirely. At least official ranking that is.

On the other hand, determining the worth of one film over another is often unchallenging. The question we should ask is whether the presence of the film’s author should be considered. Does the fact that it is a Quentin Tarantino film automatically give it more worth than the fact that it is a Zack Snyder film? (Yes, but that is beside the point) No, a film should be based on its individual merit regardless of whose name is stamped onto it. This is, of course, in direct contention with Bazin’s formula.

Author + Subject = Work

With this in mind, let me briefly compare the work of two filmmakers I have recently watched selected works from. American film director Frank Capra had a long lasting Hollywood career characterized by feel good and generally patriotic films about human goodness. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, It’s a Wonderful Life, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington being examples here. Compare these works to Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg whose body horror in Videodrome, The Fly, and eXistenz are a far cry from the light Capra fare. The fact that I have recently viewed a handful of films by these two well-known artists is not the only reason for choosing them. To anyone familiar with these works it becomes obvious how far they are from one another in the filmic kingdom.

The question becomes again, how do we compare these two bodies of work? We could certainly give some points to the longevity of Capra’s work, yet Cronenberg has simply not been around as long and may, with time, out-produce Capra in quantity. On the other hand we may credit Cronenberg for his unique visuals and usually wholly original content. Yet Capra’s themes seem to run wide and shared in our society. My point being that putting one over the other is simply a matter of personal preference. Much like the Cahiers writers, one person’s preference does not always coincide with that of their peers.

This still does not answer my original inquiry. Do we rate a director’s work as more worthwhile when we can tell whose work it is? And more relevantly, do we need to? Maybe the presence of authorship denotes the individual’s continuity and devotion by claiming artistic ownership. It would make sense that we praise those who continue with something to the point that they become proficient. And if this proficiency is measured by their authorial presence, then it only make sense that we admire such a trait. Thus the idea of auteur, regardless of its debated history as a practice or theory, seems not only helpful and fun but important as well.