Auteur Theory Application

The term auteur emanates from France and it means author, which in film theory implies that a film by a director mirrors their artistic and ingenious vision. In accordance to Pearson and Simpson (2001), an auteur is delineated as a film director that generates a distinguishing and unique way to film creation by means of visual autograph and thematic and storyline constancy. The auteur theory was instigated in the 1950s in France by directors such as Francis Truffaut who promoted an emphasis on the input made by directors with respect to their style and type of film. The conception of auteurs came about as a way of connecting films together by the precise director that made them, pointing out the various repetitive techniques employed and the stylistic manipulations in different film projects as a representation of the persona and impact that the director has in such film projects (Nelmes, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the practicality of the auteur theory as a methodology for studying screen texts. It will also delve into the strong suits and shortcomings of auteur theory, making direct references to the film works of Quentin Tarantino. The paper will consider the different techniques and styles used by Tarantino to determine whether he can be deemed a film auteur.

Subsequently, Andrew Sarris made a greater expansion on the auteur theory, and established more distinctive principles and measures of what it takes to be considered an auteur. Sarris recommended not just the unique personality and individuality of the director as a key criterion of being an auteur, but also the decisive meaning exuded from the content. In particular, Sarris (1968) makes the argument that regardless of the various hindrances set upon directors such as relinquishing control, the capacity of some directors to get through such hindrances is proof that in actual sense, the director is an auteur. As a result, this implies that the director, irrespective of other external factors, continues to be the fundamental and ingenious vehicle that drives the film.

In particular, Sarris presents three criteria that a director has to meet in order to be considered an auteur. The first criterion takes into account the technical competence of a director. In accordance to the auteur theory, if a director lacks technical competence and no elementary talent for the cinema then he or she is not deemed an auteur (Caughie, 2013). A second criterion encompasses the discernible personality of the director. In this case, with respect to a number of films, a director has to demonstrate particular recurring features of style, which function as his signature. The manner in which a film appears and moves ought to have a kind of association to the manner in which a director contemplates and feels. The third and eventual criterion of the auteur theory takes into account interior connotation, the decisive glory of the cinema as an art. According to Sarris, interior meaning is deduced from the tension between the character and material of the director (Sarris, 1968).

The initial criteria of analysis from Sarris' standpoint is assessing whether a director is deemed an auteur in addressing his or her technical competence. To begin with, without doubt, Tarantino is one of the most successful and renowned film directors in his era and in the film world as a whole. It is imperative to note that a director cannot be deemed successful if he or she does not possess technical competence. More so, technical competence can be perceived in the incessant use of certain techniques in his films. From a technical standpoint, his initial works on film are considerably basic and simple and his general selection of shots, angles, and cuts as well as composition is not complex. For instance, in the film Pulp Fiction, it can be perceived that Tarantino employs the basic use of two shots, close-ups, shot reverse shot, over the shoulder, medium shots, basic pans and high and low angles. These are classical exemplary production methods and for the most part realist (Joyce, 2015).

Another aspect takes into account the fact that Tarantino incessantly employs parallel camera angles and film shots, for instance the use of doorways. In addition, he has a proclivity of shooting his characters, especially the protagonists in the film, from behind, an approach that is atypical in style. In addition, Tarantino largely employs shots that are zoomed in on to lay emphasis on important scenes in the film as a way of gaining attention of the audience. For instance, he zooms in on the facial reactions and expressions of the protagonists as another character speaks. Despite the fact that on numerous occasions there has been disparaging of Tarantino's films, owing to his style of borrowing from other films, it can be perceived that he does this in a way that exudes technical competence and ultimately this has come to be his signature (Joyce, 2015).

As aforementioned, for a director to become an auteur, it is imperative to come up with and maintain a distinctive, reckonable, and identifiable signature all the way through their career in film. In assessing some of the celebrated and renowned films directed by Tarantino such as Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill 1 and Kill Bill 2, it can be perceived that there are identical themes and stylistics affinities (Smith, 2016). It is because of these themes in the aforementioned films that many have come to see Tarantino's signature. One of the characteristics of this director's style includes his incessant utilization of intertextuality. Tarantino's work has indicated that he is impacted by a great deal of understanding of motion pictures from various genres, ranging from French and Horror Films to Martial Arts. Time and again imitating and referencing other films, characters and aesthetic preferences of those flicks, Tarantino consistently combines these features in new and credulous ways, making the audience cognizant of what they are accustomed to being relatively unfamiliar. These recurrent insinuations, whether elusive or flamboyant, are common to Tarantino's films and for that reason have come to be a stylistic feature time and again linked to him (Caughie, 2013).

Another aspect concerning Tarantino's signature encompasses how he employs violence prevalently in his movies. Films such as Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained, Kill Bill and The Hateful Eight are well renowned for the violence they contain. However, it is imperative to note that it is the manner in which Tarantino depicts violence within the films that makes him a unique director. Despite the fact that his films include explicit scenes of violence and pandemonium filled with blood, Tarantino amalgamates this violence with components of comicality and nonchalance. As a result, this causes the violence to be shockingly humorous, giving them a funny (Heisler, 2015).

Another unique style that has come to be part of Tarantino's signature includes his alteration of the classic movie storyline. Rather, as a director, he includes several disjointed storylines that contain flash backs and flash forwards as well as split chapters. This is purposed to get the audience thinking, making them fit the puzzle pieces and positions them for the plot to make sense. Taking all of these aspects into consideration, it can be perceived that Tarantino without doubt has particular stylistic individualities that he employs in all of the films he directs, which have come to be his signature. In turn, he fulfills the second criteria of being considered an auteur.

In accordance to Sarris (1968), the notion of interior meaning verges upon what is delineated as miseen scene, but only that. It is neither the vision of the realm a director schemes nor hardly his or her attitude toward life. It is abstruse, in any fictitious manner, because part of it is entrenched in the elements of the cinema and cannot be rendered in noncinematic aspects. Based on Truffaut's perspectives, this is referred to as the temperature of the director on the set and is a near estimate of its professional component (Sarris, 1968). In particular, this can be perceived in Tarantino's films. Tarantino does not make explicitly evocative films that offer clear and widespread realities immediately. In majority of the films created, the protagonists in the film usually come together as they culminate. The audience can sense the fate of the characters coming together. However, Tarantino does the opposite. He creates films that separate people rather than bring them together. This includes aspects such as treachery between characters, for instance in Pulp Fiction and revenge in Django Unchained. The characters do not have any kind of power with respect to their fate within the film. It can be deemed that this makes Tarantino's films all the more catching and appealing to the audience (Joyce, 2015).

Auteur theory as a methodology of examining films does have its strengths and weaknesses. One of the strong suits of the auteur theory is that it offers critics in the world of film a structure through which they can utilize to assess a film that could not be done in preceding occasions. The cinematic realm has now attained the aesthetic and theoretical validity that other forms of art, for instance music, has had for long time. In particular, through the auteur theory, it is possible for film critics to overlook the storyline and examine the manner in which it was portrayed (Nelmes, 2012). In the past, a film used to be critiqued by examining the narrative used. However, owing to this theory, it is now conceivable to assess the film techniques used. In doing so, it has now become possible to concurrently examine the director as well as the film's artistic qualities. Taking into consideration the three criteria outlined by Sarris (1968), a director's range of films created can be analyzed comprehensively to ascertain any consistencies in his style of film and techniques used, any regular themes and also standpoint of the world. It becomes possible to determine their persona through the array of films produced (Nelmes, 2012). On the other hand, a key shortcoming encompasses ambiguity in its assessment and criticism of a director. The theory's weakness lies in the fact that the determination of whether a director fits to be an auteur or not wholly lies on the perspective of the critic. It is imperative to note that on one hand, a critic can find a director to meet all the criteria of an auteur whereas another critic would consider such works to be miseen scene. This incessant aspect of disagreement indicates a flaw in the theory.