Auteur Theory & Auteurs in Modern Indian Cinema

Auteur Theory and Auteurs in Modern Indian Cinema

Auteur is an artist, predominantly a filmmaker who is considered as the author of the film. The term 'auteur' was coined by Andrew Sarris, an American film critic, in 1962 in his essay 'Notes on the Auteur Theory'.  An auteur's film is entirely his/her vision of the world, expressed through all the crafts of film making. This theory was popularized by Andre Bazin, in the 1940s, and by other French film critics through the Cahiers du cinema magazine. These critics later went on to make films, forming the French New Wave. Francois Truffaut would criticize studio films where the directors were faithful to the scripts, which would be faithful adaptations of classic literature. He said that in those scenarios, the director was a "stager" just to bring everything together. Auteur theory advocates visual stylistic choices and signature techniques of a filmmaker like the smooth pans, tilts and the teal, yellow color palette in films of David Fincher; freeze frames, use of pop music and extensive usage of voice-over in films of Martin Scorsese; smoky visuals, strong colors, slow-motion, repeated use of a certain music and a sense of tranquility in films of Wong Kar Wai. It needs the presence of a filmmaker, felt in the film. They can also be recurring themes explored with a strong voice in a film maker's filmography, like Gautham Vasudev Menon, Imtiaz Ali, Woody Allen, Richard Linklater, etc. The films have to come from a strong sense of individuality of the filmmaker.

Auteur theory always had strong criticism from the beginning. Pauline Kael, was an early opponent. In her 50,000 words book-length essay Raising Kane in 1971, she wrote how the film used distinctive talents of the co-writer and cinematographer. In 2006, David Kipen coined the term, Schreiber theory indicating that the screenwriter is primarily the author of the film. Aaron Sorkin can be an example of this, his snappy dialogue is evident and distinctive in all of his films, especially his last ones, irrespective of the director. One more criticism of the auteur theory is that it diminishes what other crew members bring on to the table. It doesn't acknowledge the fact that film is a collective effort. Filmmaker Drake Doremus said that he just had a rough outline of the sequence of events in his film Like Crazy and he would tell the actors what would happen and keep rolling the camera for a long period of time and take whatever that would come, of course, he would guide them but here the actors are doing a great deal of work. There's also a criticism that the practice of praising auteurs is male-dominated. Filmmaker Indraganti Mohan Krishna, when asked in an interview about a lack of his signature in his films, he said that a filmmaker having a visual signature in all of their films indicates that the filmmaker would use certain techniques in their film irrespective of whether the story needs it or not.

Auteurs are extensively praised in Hollywood and in world cinema, a new individual voice is always welcomed at every major film festival. But in India, somehow exploring recurring themes is looked down upon. Most of the time, filmmakers like Ram Gopal Varma are labeled as 'not creative anymore'. Gautham Vasudev Menon keeps getting a lot of flak for telling the same kind of stories with different actors. What is the difference between a Martin Scorsese who makes The Irishman and a Gautham Vasudev Menon who makes an Enai Noki Payum Thota? First of all, the films have to be engaging and relevant. But keeping that aside, there is a difference between exploring recurring themes and having the same conflict every time. Woody Allen's films always have themes like romance, art, poetry and all of them rely on extensive dialogue. Aren't his films easier to get bored of? But, he comes up with an interesting conflict every time and incorporates his themes in the new premise. You can crack up by just reading the premise of some of his films. Whereas with a Gautham Menon, the premise is getting repetitive which is why he gets that flak. Yet, he has loyal fans who'd watch his films in spite of being set in a similar world every time. 

Another reason, Indian cinema doesn't celebrate auteurs is because of the diversity in our country. Today, the audience of India is diverse on so many grounds that to bring everyone on the same page is almost impossible unless the film is by a Rajamouli or a Rajkumar Hirani. What's right and wrong, what's acceptable and what's not is changing so fast in our country, which is important and inevitable, that it hinders honest voices. If the audience is so aggressive on politically incorrect voices, then we will get to see politically correct art. Does that mean, politically and morally correct art can't be good? Of course not. But, why limit art which stays forever with our morals whose righteousness keeps changing with time? What if someone had a brilliant love story of a gay couple, 20 years back and didn't write it just because it is politically incorrect at that time and he/she is dead now? That could've actually happened.

How many films do we need to call a director, an auteur? We can't obviously call someone an auteur with their first film. Getting a film made is a tough job and filmmakers usually dream about their first film for years and hence do a lot of work in every aspect of it. No matter how great a film is, you can't call a filmmaker, an auteur after watching their first film. You need to watch at least their second film, to identify their voice. Some filmmakers in modern Indian cinema to be excited about are, Thiagarajan Kumararaja, whose Super Deluxe had a strong voice in terms of both storytelling and craft; Lijo Jose Pellissery, whose films deal with strong underlying themes along with unique use of craft; Zoya Akhtar, who makes films in the mainstream space where most of her films deal with internal conflicts. Her usage of craft is not to push the storytelling, but to keep us in the world and even that is a great amount of work because she works with stars whose identifiable stardom, can hinder storytelling by easily pulling us out of the world of the film.