1) At the end of Grapes of Wrath (1940) the famous depiction of Rosasharn offering her breast milk to a dying man (in Steinbeck's novel) is omitted. Many modern critics may claim that director John Ford is keeping this scene from his film as an auteur, but obviously, this occurrence would not be allowed to be shown in cinema in the 1940's, despite what Ford truly desired. Instead, Ford places a happier spin on the ending of the film. Does this make him an auteur? The simple answer is yes, he is because he creates and 'alternate ending' but does so in order to get his film approved by the board.
2) Auteur theory delves into the idea that an author, or director, has a unique and consistent touch on all the films he or she directs and that a director makes of breaks a film. This theory is interesting, but also cannot be completely confirmed or solidified because of many factors. If one is to believe that auteur theory is completely true, then he or she is likening the director of a film directly to an author of a book or a piece of writing. However, one cannot merely dismiss the fact that an author of a book is the sole proprietor of that piece of work, but a film director is the spearhead and leader of the film, but there are many many other people involved. People who spend their time trying to prove the absolute validity of auteur theory waste their time because the fact that a myriad of people have their hand in the work is unavoidable. Andrew Sarris claims that, "an expert production crew could probably cover up for a chimpanzee in the director's chair," and furthers that in order to find the director's true impact on the outcome of a film one needs to examine what happens "after a number of films, a pattern is established," (Sarris 141). He is correct in asserting that auteur theory is substantial because it emphasizes and recognizes the director's role in creating a film, but is not the absolute truth.
I disagree with your assessment of John Ford as an auteur. Not for giving him that label necessarily, but for the reasoning behind it. You state that he would have felt both cultural and studio pressure to omit the breast-feeding scene, as it would have stirred controversy at that time. Can this really justify Ford as an auteur? If he felt that his vision of the novel’s soul could be expressed without the scene, then he would completely fit the label. If we consider, however, the other pressures he felt, then our idea of Ford as an auteur gets foggier. Can we really distinguish between Ford consciously omitting this scene to better serve his film and studio executives practicing censorship over the “letter” he adapts? It is possible that, like the breast-feeding scene, parts of the novel touching on communism could have been omitted to appease those reviewing the content of the film so that Ford would avoid any negative backlash from the studios. If he had to make this change to simply allow it to pass a review board, then he was not in complete control of the direction of the film, and therefore not an auteur.
ReplyDeleteI do subscribe to the theory personally, as I do measure the style of a director’s films over the span of his or her career. I disagree, though, with your argument comparing the works of an author writing a book. Just like the film industry, authors too must deal with those who edit, fund, and distribute the book, and those outside forces could influence the book in some way. In order to truly wear the auteur hat, the director must work independently, denying any outside influence or resources. In our classic Hollywood system, the auteur filmmakers are the ones lucky enough to get full editorial power when they make their films. Unless a director is handed that sort of autonomy, he is hamstrung by the outside forces tweaking and editing the overall vision of his film.