IFC Assignments – Pete's OCA Learning Log

IFC Assignment 5 – Rework Self Reflection.

Pete — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 08:45:23 +0000

Further to my formative feedback with Andrew Conroy on assignment 5 I have crystalised my thinking further and strengthened the essay as to the position of Danny Boyle as an auteur.

Andrew jogged by thinking and pointed me in the direction of the London 2012 Olympic open ceremony which was directed by Danny Boyle and the unlying ideology of those scene which championed England including the NHS and Trades Unions.

Re-watching this on Youtube and reading in conjunction with the Jonathan Freedland’s article in the Guardian from 2013 helped bring forward my ideas of identifying Boyle as a potential Auteur.

Still feel that Boyle doesn’t quite fit the tradition theories, probably more because of his own reluctance to accept the title, however, I feel that perhaps there is room for further of auteur theory as a whole to encompass the modern film maker.

My tutor pointed out a couple areas where i had not directly quoted the writers and paraphrased I have taken a hard look at the essay I have taken the decision to keep these areas as is, because my opinion it helps the essay flow and be more approachable for the reader.

Overall I was very happy with the first draft but I have more please with this 2nd draft and stand by it.

IFC Assignment 5 – Rework

Pete — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 07:06:08 +0000

Does the filmography of Danny Boyle confirm his status as a true Auteur?

Auteur theory is used as a method of examining a film in terms of the creative expression of an individual filmmaker (Watson, 2012). The release in early 2017 of T2: Trainspotting (2017) once again raises the question of Danny Boyle’s influence upon British cinema. With the release of Shallow Grave (1994) and Trainspotting (1996), at the height of Britpop, a resurgence of British sport (Welsh, 2015) and the advent of a new Labour Government, Boyle is credited with helping awaken British cinema from its Thatcherite slumber, and he has continued to have a knack of capturing the spirit of the times, be it the nineties’ drug scene or the aspirations of noughties’ Indian slum-dwellers (Raphael 2011). The British director does not refer to himself as an auteur (Raphael, 2011), but rather acknowledges the collaborative nature of filmmaking. However, does his embrace of a complete collaborative filmmaking process and claims by media commentators that Boyle consistently captures the cultural and social zeitgeist (Ananda, 2009; Welsh, 2015; Fortune, 2017) infer Boyle is indeed an auteur? In order to examine Boyle’s work, this essay will explore the development of auteur theory and then, attempting to find proof that Boyle’s films show thematic consistency, consider whether this is evidence of an authorial presence despite Boyle’s assertion.

“Auteur” is simply the French word for “author”; the director, as David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson have claimed, for the majority of people is “[a] film’s primary ‘author’” (Bordwell and Thompson, 2013). However, as John Caughie has pointed out, before the development of auteur theory, which became increasingly popular during the 1950s and 1960s, traditional film theory and criticism viewed the author of a film as the person who wrote the screenplay (Caughie,1981).

Auteur theory originated from the French New Wave and an article published in 1954 by the French film critic and later filmmaker François Truffaut in Cahiers du Cinéma, a magazine devoted to film criticism and analysis. Truffaut’s original polemic was intended to raise questions about existing critical assumptions of the French film industry – which Truffaut believed was obsessed with “tradition de la qualité”, that is, films based mainly on adaptations of literary classics – and with the Cahier group he moved against the privileged role of writers to acknowledge more the role of directors (Etherington-Wright & Dougherty, 2011). As a result, the films of directors working outside the European tradition (primarily those working within the Hollywood studio system), were initially ignored by mainstream film critics. Truffaut and other French film critics such as Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, Claude Chabrol, André Bazin and Eric Rohmer, developed Truffaut’s article into what came to be referred to as the “politique des auteurs”; which was intended to bring to light the work of non-European filmmakers (Etherington-Wright & Dougherty, 2011). This led to auteur theory being adopted by American critics as a central concept of film criticism (Bordwell & Thompson, 2013).

The establishment of auteur theory as a viable method of analysing the work of a director led to a re-evaluation of films made by directors working within the Hollywood studio system, such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, etc. Prior to the widespread adoption of auteur theory, the films of such directors were routinely dismissed as products of a mass production system and, therefore, devoid of any artistic merit (Watson, 2012). Indeed, critics have argued that the reason why American films were largely ignored by mainstream film criticism was because “Hollywood pictures [were] not so much custom-built as manufactured” (Caughie, 1981).

In other words, the system of making films within the Hollywood studio system left no room, as far as mainstream film critics were concerned, for the director to impose any individual form of artistic expression. Critical enthusiasm for auteur theory meant that commercial products such as Hollywood films could then be re-evaluated.

In 1962, Andrew Sarris argued that a director should be technically competent; should show personal style; and finally, the auteur’s films should possess an interior meaning, exhibited by a film’s mise-en-scène (Etherington-Wright and Doughty, 2011). In order to evaluate whether Danny Boyle fits the definition of an auteur, it is the third of Sarris’ system of three criteria that is the most appropriate to examine in this essay. Mise-en-scène refers to the many individual elements that appear within the cinematic frame such as lighting, setting, props, costumes, cinematography, make-up, the behaviour of the performers, and special effects (Speidel, 2012). Mise-en-scène is viewed as one of the main distinguishing characteristics of an auteur because it is the main area in which directors have complete control, unlike their limited influence over a film’s screenplay (Crofts, 1998).

Auteur theorists agree a director can be viewed as an auteur by analysing a number of a director’s films in order to uncover consistent styles. This is a point made by Amy Villarejo, who has argued that auteurs find a number of ways to “‘sign’ their films” (Villarejo, 2007). According to Villarejo, this authorial signature can reveal the thematic preoccupations of a director through the use of mise-en-scène (Villarejo, 2007). For example, the influence of German expressionism in Tim Burton’s work can be seen through the use of curves and angular objects within the frame, as well as by the surreal nature of his storytelling (Etherington-Wright & Dougherty, 2011). Furthermore, as stated by Etherington-Wright and Doughty, “it is necessary to identify consistent stylistic traits across films to decide whether or not a director can be classed as an auteur” (2011). With regard to the films of Danny Boyle, applying authorship is fraught with difficulties because of the eclectic nature of his cinematic output.

At the time of writing, Boyle has directed 13 feature films, but unlike directors such as John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock or Quentin Tarantino, who are viewed as auteurs, Boyle’s films do not overtly display a thematic consistency. This has not prevented media commentators such as Edwin Page from finding evidence of cinematic authorship, as discussed below. Furthermore, claims of Boyle’s authorial intent are also complicated by the director’s denials of any authorial intent in his films.

In reply to writer Amy Raphael’s question of whether he referred to himself as an auteur, Boyle replied that he did not think so (Raphael, 2011). In order to seek clarification, Raphael stated that what she meant was “your films reflect your creative vision and have a distinct quality” (Raphael, 2011). Boyle replied that he would “be happy to accept that word if it didn’t have such indulgent associations! That one word shuffles everybody else’s contribution sideways, and it’s obviously unfair” (Raphael, 2011).

Boyle’s modest thoughts correspond to one of the main criticisms of auteur theory, as Bordwell and Thompson have noted, “Collective film production creates collective authorship” (Bordwell & Thompson., 2013). In other words, a film is a final product of a collaborative process, which incorporates a range of technical personnel from cinematographers, editors, composers, costumers, set designers and artistic directors. This point is reaffirmed by Boyle who has argued “…directors shouldn’t consider themselves special. Films are dependent on so many different people; so much of the work is not creative; it’s not about having ‘a gift’ but how well you carry out man-management. I always find it really odd when film-makers are referred to as artists. I think artists are people like Picasso.” (Raphael, 2011).

Nevertheless, and in spite of Boyle’s point of view, this has not prevented media commentators from assigning authorial intent to the director’s work. For example, Paul O’Callaghan, writing for the British Film Institute, has argued that Boyle’s films are linked by the director’s “impeccable knack for pairing arresting visuals with judiciously chosen music” (O’Callaghan, 2017). He argued that Boyle’s films employ “era-defining” soundtracks, which “remain in tune with the zeitgeist” (O’Callaghan, 2017,). The main film credited with capturing the zeitgeist is Boyle’s Trainspotting (1996), which memorably featured Iggy Pop’s ‘Lust for Life’ during the film’s opening sequence. O’Callaghan has stated that Boyle’s other films also feature memorable soundtracks that serve to define the director’s work: for example, Nina Simone’s ‘My Baby Just Cares for Me’ in Shallow Grave, ‘A Life Less Ordinary’ by Ash in A Life Less Ordinary (1997), ‘Pure Shores’ by All Saints in The Beach (2000), and ‘O…Saya’ by M.I.A. in Slumdog Millionaire (2008). However, it is arguable whether these songs (or indeed films) actually captured the defining mood or spirit of the time when they were made. This critique is even more pertinent when one considers that A Life Less Ordinary and The Beach are viewed as commercial failures (O’Callaghan, 2017). If they had truly reflected the zeitgeist, they might have been more successful. Boyle’s use of music is similar to that applied by directors such as Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino; nonetheless, both Scorsese and Tarantino are defined as auteurs not by their choice of music but by the thematic consistency of their films – a feature which is harder to identify in Boyle’s work.

As noted above, one of the few commentators to argue that Boyle is an auteur is Edwin Page. Page has stated that Boyle is an auteur because the director makes use of a series of frequent themes and familiar stylistic devices (Page, 2009). However, Page’s definitions are open to a great deal of criticism and interpretation. According to Page, Boyle’s films feature ordinary protagonists who do not display “the usual traits of Hollywood heroes” (Page, 2009). The same claim can be made of any number of directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, Scorsese, or Tarantino, and is merely a choice of subject matter and not specifically a thematic authorial choice. The same observation can be made about Page’s claim that Boyle’s films “portray friendship and the importance of connecting with others” (Page, 2009). However, this is not the case with Shallow Grave, which features three flatmates trying to kill each other in order to claim a suitcase of money, nor with Sunshine (2007), where the main characters are distinguished by their inability to work effectively as a team in order to fulfil their mission.

Page also cites dreams and visions, references to religion, moral dilemmas, large amounts of money, subcultures, and open narratives as examples of a thematic consistency that serve to confirm Boyle’s status as an auteur (Page, 2009). However, according to traditional auteur theory, Page’s examples are merely narrative themes and do not reflect authorial intent to tap into the zeitgeist. In addition, these narrative themes are not consistent across Boyle’s films. For example, religion is not a major or relevant theme in T2: Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, or A Life Less Ordinary, Page appears to have misunderstood how auteur theory should be applied and has leaned towards what Caughie has described as “critical reductiveness” (Caughie, 1981), or reducing the content of Boyle’s films to a number of restrictive narrative themes.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that Boyle does appear to have a signature in his work, and it is only when we view his canon from further afield and in conjunction with his work on the London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony that this signature becomes more apparent. By his own admission, Boyle is left-wing in political ideology and in the Olympic ceremony championed the British NHS, the suffragettes and Trade Unions; Johnathan Freeland states he produced a “hymn to collective endeavour” (2013). This left-wing ideology appears to underpin his modest reluctance in accepting the label of auteur, echoed by his refusal of a knighthood. Yet it is ironically the strongest augment for why he could be considered an auteur. According to Freeland, Boyle is an idealist whose films may have bleak subject matter, but are never hopeless. Freeland quotes Boyle as ‘[joking] that he is making the same film over and over again, each one the story of one character’s triumph against “insurmountable odds”’ – a statement which can be interpreted as authorial intent.

In conclusion, while in his films Boyle retains a visual distinctiveness, and in films such as Trainspotting successfully captured the prevailing zeitgeist through judicious use of music, the majority of Boyle’s filmography, while employing contemporary and popular music, does not reveal the same level of thematic consistency that would be expected by traditional auteur theory.

Boyle is an excellent conductor of the orchestra that is a film set, which shows in directorial distinctiveness, and puts forward his own political and social beliefs within his work. This essay has shown it is doubtful that the British director is an auteur according to traditional auteur theory, and it may be unfair to give him that label against his wishes. However, it has shown evidence that auteur theory is perhaps too narrow to define today’s more eclectic and ambitious filmmakers who find more subtle ways to sign their work.

Bibliography

28 Days Later. (2002). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: DNA Film.

A Life Less Ordinary. (2017). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK/US: Figment Film/Channel Four Films.

Ananda, R. (2009) Slumdog Millionaire: Danny Boyle captures the zeitgeist. OpEdNews.com. [Online] 5 April. Available from: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Slumdog-Millionaire-Danny-by-Rady-Ananda-090405-124.html [Accessed: 28 June 2017].

Bordwell, D. and Thompson, K. (2013) Film Art: An Introduction. 10^th Edn. London & New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Boyle, D. (2012). The Complete London 2012 Opening Ceremony | London 2012 Olympic Games. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4As0e4de-rI [Accessed 30 Aug. 2017].

Caughie, J. (1981) Introduction. In Caughie, J. (ed.) Theories of Authorship. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Crofts, S. (1998) Authorship and Hollywood. In Hill, J. and Gibson, P.C. (eds.) The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. London & New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Denney, A. (2016) How the Trainspotting soundtrack defined 90s cool. Dazed. [Online] Available from: http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/30081/1/how-the-trainspotting-soundtrack-defined-90s-cool [Accessed: 28 June 2017].

Etherington-Wright, C. and Doughty, R. (2011) Understanding Film Theory. Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Freedland, J. (2013). Danny Boyle: champion of the people. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/mar/09/danny-boyle-queen-olympics-film [Accessed 30 Aug. 2017].

Fortune, D. (2017) Danny Boyle on Why the Trainspotting Movies Are About More Than Drugs. Esquire. [Online] 16 March. Available from: http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a53898/danny-boyle-interview-t2-trainspotting/ [Accessed: 28 June 2017].

O’Callaghan, P. (2017) Danny Boyle: a career in 10 songs. British Film Institute. [Online] 27 January. Available from: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/danny-boyle-career-10-songs / [Accessed: 28 June 2017].

Monaco, J. (2009). How to Read a Film [Kindle Edition]. New York: Oxford University Press.

Page, E. (2013). Ordinary Heroes: The Films of Danny Boyle. London: Red Pill Productions.

Raphael, A. (2011). Danny Boyle: Authorised Edition [Kindle Edition]. London: Faber and Faber.

Shallow Grave. (1994). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: Film4.

Slumdog Millionare. (2008). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: Film4.

Speidel, S. (2012) Film form and narrative. In Nelmes, J. (ed.) Introduction to Film Studies. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Steve Jobs. (2015). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. US: Universal Pictures.

Sunshine. (2007). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: DNA Films.

T2: Trainspotting. (2017). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: Film4.

The Beach. (2000). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK/US: 20th Century Fox.

Trainspotting. (1996). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: Channel Four Films.

Trance. (2013). [film] Directed by D. Boyle. UK: Film4.

Villarejo, A. (2007) Film Studies: The Basics. Abingdon, Oxon & New York, NY: Routledge.

Watson, P. (2012) Cinematic authorship and the film auteur. In Nelmes, J. (ed.) Introduction to Film Studies. 5^th Edn. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Welsh, A.C. (2015) How The Trainspotting Soundtrack Gave Us A Perfect Snapshot Of 1996 Music. New Musical Express. [Online] 1 October. Available from: http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/how-the-trainspotting-soundtrack-gave-us-a-perfect-snapshot-of-1996-music-15140 [Accessed: 28 June 2017].

YouTube. (2013). Danny Boyle interviewed by Kermode & Mayo. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QjhDHxnZmA [Accessed 27 Jun. 2017].

YouTube. (2017). Danny Boyle interviewed by Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DowkdqVr0lA [Accessed 27 Jun. 2017].

YouTube. (2013). Danny Boyle: A film reflects the director’s personality – Interview. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAV2OGf8sfY [Accessed 28 Jun. 2017].

YouTube. (2016). Danny Boyle: A film reflects the director’s personality – Interview. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAV2OGf8sfY [Accessed 27 Jun. 2017].

IFC Assignment 5 – Tutor Feedback.

Pete — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 06:19:43 +0000

IFC Assignment 5 – Tutor Feedback

Tutor feedback for assignment 5 was in the form of a Skype conversation anf about is my highlighted copy of Andrews follow up notes.

Andrew was very pleased with the essay and we were fairly close to be on the same page about our tjougyts towards it. Andrew like my in my initial thinking thought there were more thematic traits in Boyle’s work that I had talked about – particularly the idea of left wing bias etc, in in general complemented me that I had argued my position well.

The tutorial was followed up my the following exchange of emails:

1st August 2017

Andrew

Greeting from a rather cool by Hong Kong standards Leeds.

Thats for the the feedback on A5 and the tutorial – as I was reading through you comments one phrase jumped out at me “nodding with agreement” because while reading and talking to you with regards this essay I found myself doing that along with you comments.

My initial idea with this essay was to try and illustrate Danny Boyle as modern auter based upon his ability to capture zeitgeist and the initial seed can from listening to Danny Boyle being interviewed on Kermode and Mayo’s 5 Live podcast back on a cold February morning in Leeds just after seeing T2: Trainspotting, just after I had submitted assignment 3 to you, and it just sat in the back of my mind until I need to concentrate on Assignment 5.

When I commenced research and actually drafting the essay out I found I was more heading away from the traditional Sarris definitions and couldn’t really find him a true auteur – without seriously refuting (probably a bit strong) auteur theory as a whole. An hence I think my essay reads a little away from what perhaps think in my heart and is written to the tone of what I thought I should say. Especial when I was reading through Edwin Pages book basically seems to say Danny Boyle was a auteur about 12 times over with number of themes running through the body of work – which i have to admit I clearly disagreed with but not as strongly as I put forward in the essay.

Based upon our conversation I’ll look to rework the essay around a few ideas and points

– the idea of left wing bias which I overlooked particularly in connection with the olympics

– the use of music and “summarily dismissal” of A life less ordinary and The Beach – which wasn’t necessarily the original intent.

– more direct use of references – I do have a tendency to paraphrase too much.

– point taken on the sweeping statement about Danny Boyle saving the whole of British cinema – again wasn’t deliberate so just need a the working tweaking to show what else was happening at the time

– Does a director need to display ‘authorial intent’ to be considered an auteur? I have a bit more confidence to address this now, as you say Auteur theory as it stands is a little shaky.

– Conclusion I think again needs to be more strongly worded to show that Auteur theory as it stands makes it hard for us to identify a a filmmaker such as Boyle as an Auteur when they are lot thing in there work that makes them individual but dat have stylistic tunnel vision.

Obviously Ill keep polishing the blog for assessment.

Once again thank you for the support through out the course – it was invaluable without the extra mile you put in on A2 I would be dead in the water now.

Reply 7th August 2017

Hi Pete,

Thanks for this, and I hope that you’re suitably acclimatised! And this, allegedly, is summer!!

It’s really nice to read such a (typically) engaged and thoughtful email, and if reworking the essay is your gut instinct, then rework away!

I used to (really) think that auteur theory was where it was all at as far as authorship arguments went, but have since found myself occupying a more moderate (mellow?!) position. I still think there’s something in it, but things have, as they were always going to, changed quite a lot. For one thing, I actually think that the presence of stars, editors, CGI-types, and even- maybe even especially– producers can be more keenly felt in most pictures, certainly ‘mainstream’ Hollywood fare, than the presence of many directors these days, so much so that I often feel like the idea of the auteur is mainly to be found in the minds of nostalgic film critics and/ or the more art-leaning parts of world cinema. Auteur theory gave Hollywood a new set of ways to sell its films, and part of me thinks that it’s an old trick that’s been wrung dry to the point of meaninglessness. Don’t forget, the guys- and they were always guys!!- that Truffaut, Godard, Sarris et al saw as auteurs were filmmakers who very definitely worked in the ‘mainstream’: John Ford, Hitchcock, etc etc. Part of the thing was that they wanted films that had invariably been seen as worthless to be reappraised and taken seriously as ‘art’, and bringing in literary allusions, e.g. ‘the camera as pen’, was a way, I guess, for them to be noticed and listened to. I guess figures like these still exist (Christopher Nolan immediately springs to mind), but as often as not, it’s always in a rather self-conscious way. I suppose the Cahiers du Cinema were arguing that great art was hiding in mainstream popular culture, but films by neo-auteurs such as Christopher Nolan are marketed as great art to start with.

Boyle, though, I think conforms to the idea of the auteur as much as he bucks it. By one reading, an auteur makes the same film over and over again, and for all his stylistic restlessness, Boyle clearly has a ‘signature’. He’s perhaps not as thematically focused and soap box-y as Ken Loach, for example, but….. but auteur theory ultimately really was about a sort of intellectual value judgment, and I could (probably!!) just as easily put another hat on and argue that he’s not an auteur. I guess auteur theory’s real use was that it ushered in an age where film was seen in rather more serious terms…. how seriously we can take it as a workable theory anymore, I don’t know.

Let me know how you get on with assessment, and best of luck,

Andrew

IFC Assignment 4 – Rework – Self Reflection

Pete — Sat, 22 Jul 2017 04:01:29 +0000

Again tutor feedback on Assignment 4 from my tutor Andrew was very encouraging, the progress I had had since Assignment 2 was being maintained. Andrew highlighted as that again there was some throw away wasteful sentences that did not help the essay and as with assignment 3 although it was generally good it could be stronger in a couple of key areas. Mainly the very generalised term that the film could be seen as feminist and that to expand on few concepts that gender is not necessarily binary and Ripley in Aliens being role reversal character.

Andrew recommended a couple of books:

David Gauntlett’s – An Introduction to Media and Identity

Rosalind Gill – Gender and the Media

These were quite helpful in fleshing out some of the ideas with the original essay and on rereading and Andrew was quite right that the ending was far too “mushy”. Also overall the structure of the essay on re-reading in light of Andrews comment and some initial changes felt clunky therefore one of the major changes in this re-work was switching the first and second section to give the essay a better flow.

This final draft I feel is much more considered, easier for the reader, and focus more how we a society should be looking away from the heteronormative world of the 20th century.

IFC Assignment 4 Highlighted Tutor Feedback

IFC Assignment 4 – Rework

Pete — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:46:16 +0000

How the coming of age and rite of passage fantasy film of twenty-first century cinema has refreshed the depiction of sexual identity and gender roles.

Science fiction and fantasy films can be carriers of contemporary cultural values and aspirations, as such, reflect – and often challenge – the accepted norms of everyday social interaction. They are most popular among young people aged 12-24 years old, who form the largest demographic of cinema-goers (Kochberg, 2012), and who may be expected to ask questions of society. Yet despite often featuring adolescent protagonists, such as in the Hunger Games franchise, few such films project signs of greater diversity in gender role representation, rather adhering to a stereotypical gender representation.

Nevertheless, from the surreal setting of The Wizard of Oz (Fleming, 1939) and the fairy tale world of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (Trousdale & Wise 1991, Condon 2017), to the futuristic planet-scape of After Earth (Shyamalan, 2013), a weird parallel reality remains an excellent testing ground in order to portray the child in the process of making the painful transition into adulthood.

This essay examines the way gender roles are presented in two relatively recent fantasy/science fiction films: After Earth and Pan’s Labyrinth (Del Toro, 2006). The first film focuses on a young boy’s mission with his military father to save the world from destruction by aliens. The second film depicts a young girl’s epic journey through a war-torn earth and a mysterious underworld, likewise with a mission to save her world, albeit from all too human aggressors. The themes of war and human suffering provide a backdrop to the narrative of growing into adulthood in both films, but there are interesting dimensions to the way gender is handled in each.

One way of examining gender representation is to consider just how complex post-modernism has made the taxonomy of film. Whenever a new film appears, it is often difficult to attribute it to any one style or genre. Villarejo tells us that “genre is an effect of repetition” (2013), and that films use certain codes to orient the viewer towards a whole range of other works that have presented similar stories in the past. The post-modernist theorist Fredric Jameson, on the other hand, stated that ‘stylistic innovation’ is no longer possible, interring that filmmaking looks to the past for inspiration, to reinvent old genres and so lead to hybridity.

After Earth has the semiotics of a science fiction film, with technology, alien creatures, and tension between different world views; however, the syntax is of a rites of passage film in a similar manner to Star Wars (Lucas,1977). As such, After Earth being seen as a science fiction film gives credence to Rick Altman’s theory that genre theory can be preoccupied with semiotics (Etherington–Wright & Doughty 2011).

The father figure in After Earth, played by Hollywood superstar Will Smith, is a classic masculine hero of science fiction genre – a senior military figure with an illustrious past. He embodies the classic heteronormative masculine traits of all military characters: competitive, dominant, strong, requiring almost tacit obedience from his son, and setting high patriarchal standards for his school work and behaviour. The boy’s mother, on the other hand, exhibits stereotypically feminine, nurturing behaviours and is, of course, visually attractive and clad in glamorous evening wear. As such, the parents in After Earth play to the cultural norms of gender as a binary concept. (McNair, 2002).

Figure 1: Poster for After Earth (Shyamalan, 2013)

In this film, the costumes show father and son in matching jump suits, and the facial features of both actors are strikingly similar, which is actually not surprising since they are in real life a Smith family father/son combo. Patriarchy is clearly having a field day in this film, as much on the real-world financial and administrative level as on that of the film’s plot. The boy’s struggle to escape from his father’s oppressive tutelage and find his own identity is achieved through multiple adventures with wild indigenous species. However, there is not much questioning of the macho traditions of the military in this film, nor is there much character progression in either father or son. Junior follows in his father’s footsteps, and will no doubt, in turn, continue this rather rigid and uninspiring method of bringing up his own offspring.

This film shows that American cinema still holds the heteronormative male action hero in high regard, and David Gauntlett suggests this is down to audience expectation, For example, one would expect gender roles to have adapted in the James Bond franchise over the last 50 years, but it has remained relatively unchanged. Both male and female audiences have always reacted better to a more hard-edged Bond, and when Bond had been softened in The Living Daylights (Glen, 1987) , it was immediately reversed in the following film. (Gauntlett, 2008).

In science fiction, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in Alien (Scott, 1979) is seen as a ground-breaking character as tough female, which moved away from the male fantasy portrayed in films such as Barbarella (Vadim, 1968), However, Alien can be viewed as simply “role reversal” with Ripley just taking the female equivalent of the clichéd male hero, as little is made of her female characteristics or attributes in regards to justification of her actions. As such, helps to illustrate how the adolescent is portrayed in Hollywood’s science fiction and fantasy, that is, stuck in the gender-segregated world of the mid-twentieth century.

Outside of the Hollywood mainstream, however, the story is not so familiar. The transition from childhood to adulthood is portrayed in fantasy classic Pan’s Labyrinth against the background of the Spanish Civil War. The film harks back to a much older tradition of the allegorical myths of Ancient Greece and Rome, and the moral tales of witches, monsters and talking animals. The film shares some of the same codes as science fiction, such as a fascination with improbable, non-human creatures and exploration of unfamiliar social and political settings. It has a decidedly magical element too, and a strong moral message about the defence of family and territory against any kind of injustice, and against the evils of war in particular.

The supernatural dimension here is provided by the gloomy underworld, into which the young protagonist Ofelia descends. Father figures are menacing, and mostly absent, with even the mother figure in many ways deficient, as Ofelia is left to tackle the problem of human suffering on her own. There is obvious mirroring between the world above and below ground, and a focus on the agency that children have, since in this story it is a young girl who decides her own and her brother’s destiny.

It is possible to view this film with regards to post-feminist culture’s affection for adolescents as an exploration of hybridity (Negra, 2010). Ofelia is both above and below, both protagonist and victim, arguably taking on masculine as well as feminine roles as she faces up to the problem of evil in the world. She must decide to sacrifice her baby brother or suffer herself, and this subverts contemporary Western society’s tendency to depict children as passive creatures guarded by adults, but not allowed to participate in any important matters. The sacrifice of innocence is depicted not through the glorification of a baby, as in the Christian tradition, but through the bravery of a young girl acting out her own moral judgements.

Figure 2: Screenshot from Pan’s Labyrinth (2006 Del Toro)

In this very influential film, it is within the adolescent girl’s power to counter the masculine forces of fascism and war through the sacrificial shedding of her blood. This film illustrates Judith Butler’s theory that gender is not necessarily linked to sex – that is, Ofelia is female, but it is her actions that define her gender (Gill, 2007), and it is this depiction of gender fluidity that evidences a move away from the stereotyping of the past. It has been noted that this director’s films “provoke the audience to question wider political and social questions” (Etherington-Wright and Doughty, 2011). The question of gender is not the main focus of the film, but it is interesting to observe how the ending of the film emphasises the tragedy of female sacrifice: the closing male voiceover at the end narrates the kind and just reign of Ofelia in the underground, which is no doubt intended to contrast sharply with the oppressive reality of the real world. The message seems to be that if women ruled the world, then everybody would live happier and more peaceful lives.

It seems, therefore, that different branches of contemporary cinema are sending different messages in their coming of age films when it comes to gender roles. The post-modern technological future of Hollywood, and of the classic science fiction genre, appears to peddle the classic masculinity as seen in the western of the 60’s and 70’s. Men must teach their sons to go out and subdue the indigenous beings that threaten to stop their all-conquering advance through unexplored worlds.

A new, more magical and much more questioning folkloric perspective is offered by Del Toro’s film. This genre looks inwards and backwards, as well as forwards, seeking to learn from the mistakes of the past, and engage young women in the search for new ways of social interaction that are more effective than the bloody wars of the twentieth century. This new folklore gives voice to a new generation of girls and boys, showing that they need not be closeted by the expectations of the heteronormative society of the 20^th Century. They are free to follow their own dreams and are not restricted to the traits of gender assigned at birth. As such, they are better placed to learn from societies past failings and potentially build a safer future for all.

Bibliography.

Condon (2017) Beauty and the Beast [Film] United States: Disney

Del Toro (2006) Pan’s Labyrinth. [Film] Spain/Mexico: Warner Bros.

Etherington-Wright, C. and Doughty, R. (2011) Understanding Film Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fleming, V. (1939) The Wizard of Oz. [Film] United States: Loew’s Inc.

Gauntlett, D. (2008). Media, gender, and identity [Kindle Edition]. London: Routledge.

Gill, R. (2007). Gender and the Media. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Kochberg, S. (2012) The industrial contexts of film production. In J. Nelmes (Ed.), Introduction to Film Studies. Fifth edition. Abingdon: Oxford, pp. 2-40..

McNair, B. (2002). Striptease culture. London: Routledge.

Negra, D. (2010). What a girl wants?. London: Routledge.

Ross, G. (2012),The Hunger Games. [film]. USA: Lionsgate Films.

Scott, R. (197 9) Alien. [Film]. UK/US: 29^th Century Fox.

Shyamalan, M. N. (2013) After Earth. [Film]. United States: Columbia Pictures.

Trousdale & Wise (1991) Beauty and the Beast [Film] United States: Disney

Vadim, R. (1968)Barbarella. [film. France, Italy: Paramount Pictues.

Villarejo, A. (2013) Film Studies: The Basics. Second edition. Abingdon: Routledge.

Watson, P. (2012) Approaches to film genre – taxonomy/genericity/metaphor. In J. Nelmes (Ed.), Introduction to Film Studies. Fifth edition. Abingdon: Oxford, pp. 188-208.

IFC Assignment 3 Rework – Self Reflection

Pete — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 09:09:08 +0000

Assignment 3 was a major step forward for me I produced a structured academically worded essay, from the second i handed it in i was confident and would have defended it contents against all comers.

My tutor’s feedback was very encouraging highlighting areas to rework work to strengthen the work one of which was the glossing over of Captain Philips and the sweeping statements.

I this rework I have concentrated on:

adding a definition of propaganda
adding more weight to the fact that Kapringen juxtaposes life at see with corporate life and reflects the lack corporate responsibility to staff over the desire to make and save money
highlighted more that Fishing Without Nets presents a first person documentary to engage the audience in understanding, if not fully sympathise with, the pirate’s situation
add weight to the theory of Paul Greengrass acting as a propagandist as pro-USA and showing the pirates just as archetypal bad guys not “genuine criminals” with a back story to understand
slight change to title to correct English usage.

Overal I’m happy with this essay and would not have believed it possible that I could have produced such work after the faltering starts early in the course.

IFC Assignment 3 Highlighted Tutor Feedback

IFC Assignment 3 Rework

Pete — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:44:10 +0000

How three filmmakers fulfilled the role of propagandist by presenting modern piracy to their audience.

Modern piracy has been a global issue since the turn of the 21st century as a direct result of the rise in sophisticated, organised groups of pirates attacking ships off the coast of Africa, Asia and, to a lesser extent, South America; holding crews for ransom or taking valuable cargo that is subsequently sold to buyers in pre-arranged agreements (BBC and Coughlan, 2006). This type of piracy is vastly different from the swashbuckling heroic pirate traditionally played by Errol Flynn on film and, more recently, revived by Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow in Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. However, in examining such traditional representations of piracy on the high seas, Understanding Film Theory 2011 states: “These popular narratives have an underlying moral message. All swashbuckling stories expose the dangers of an all-powerful elite class, which given free rein tyrannises and exploits the less fortunate for materialistic gain” (Etherington-Wright and Doughty, 2011). While modern piracy is less glamorous than that shown by Errol Flynn, does it give filmmakers a platform in their role of propagandist to challenge the political establishment in the same way?

Propaganda is, by definition, “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature used to promote a political cause or point of view” (Oxford Dictionaries | English, 2017). This essay will analyse the points of view that are conveyed in three films: Tobias Lindholm’s Kapringen (A Hijacking) (2012); Cutter Hodierne’s Fishing Without Nets (2012); and Paul Greengrass’s Captain Phillips (2013). It will examine how the directors may be considered propagandists with a view to assessing the theory that their cinematic products seek to influence public opinion on a topic – in this case, modern piracy – projecting the narrative from specific perspectives in order to encourage the audience to think about piracy in very specific ways.

The cinematography of all three movies actively reinforces the directors’ perspectives. In Lindholm’s Kapringen, it is important to note that, in order to establish a realistic environment for the narrative, it was actually shot on a genuine cargo ship, the MV Rozen, that was hijacked off the coast of Somalia. Also, the telephone conversations between Omar and Peter Ludvigsen were filmed with the actors in Kenya and Denmark respectively, again to help with realism and tension (Times and Olsen, 2013).

The opening scene maximises the impact of the authenticity by framing the character Hartmann against the open sea while he is on the phone to his family. There are several medium close-up shots of him in a similar vein that serve to present him as the main protagonist, whilst drawing attention to the juxtaposition of his life at sea and that with his family. This portrayal as family man positions Hartmann as a signifier of the film’s central idea about the human cost capitalism and corporate power. This introduction also frames the narrative by providing an environment in which neither the pirates nor the captives are in their own spatial field, instead framing them as displaced (Villarejo, 2013). This actively reinforces the power that those in the office – and by extension the corporate world – have over the fate of all those on board, and highlights the function of the movie as propaganda.

On the other hand, the cinematography in Hodierne’s Fishing Without Nets deliberately forces a shift in the discussion of modern piracy, presenting it through the eyes of the pirates, who also happen to be poor Somali fishermen with limited prospects and no other way of making a living. Although some scenes are cinematic, in that they are shot with smooth camera work and dramatic lighting (Bordwell & Thompson, 2016), it appears that the pirates are being interviewed for a documentary as a result of the medium close-up and the way in which they speak to camera. This is juxtaposed in the next scene with an unsteady camera that follows them to the ship, which is more reminiscent of observational documentaries. It is also supported by narration from the pirates, who discuss strategy and why they do what they do: “We don’t have to shoot! Only shoot if they don’t cooperate!” (Hodierne, 2012, 00:01:41-00:01:47), blurring the lines between fiction and documentary and creating realism in the form of a pseudo-documentary, which encourages the audience to empathise with those who feel that they have no choice but to become a “hapless criminal” (Macaulay, 2012). Fishing Without Nets re-establishes the importance of modern piracy on the political agenda but challenges the status quo, with its pseudo-documentary style demonstrating how far the deliberate use of the issue as propaganda may be manipulated by the individual filmmaker.

Editing is also important in the films’ roles as propaganda, in conjunction with cinematography. In Kapringen, the camerawork lends a sense of reality to the narrative, following the characters in the office and on the MV Rosen in a disjointed and often shaky way. However, it is the way in which the takeover of the ship is filmed that highlights the experience of the hostages. Although the takeover is revealed via a phone call to the CEO of the shipping company, Peter Ludvigsen, and is never actually shown in the film, the treatment of those on the ship is depicted as chaotic, with the camera rapidly cutting from Hartmann’s face to their Somali captors, to a medium close-up of the captain being rushed away from the rest. The abrupt cut to the relative silence of the shipping company’s office demonstrates their distance from the events, as does the editing of the scenes in which the CEO negotiates via speakerphone – as mentioned above, these were filmed in real time. This starkly highlights the difference in the players’ perspectives in the drama but also draws attention to Lindholm’s subtle reference to money being worth more than human life. Similar techniques are used in Captain Philips. Paul Greengrass is well known for using a handheld camera and a frenetic style that disorientates the audience, shown in The Bourne Supremacy (2004) and The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) (Buhler and Newton, 2015). In Captain Phillips, the editing serves to deliberately frame the pirates as the archetypal “bad guys”, promoting the “West versus the Other” formula that has often been associated with race, and perceived as a threat to a specific way of life (Newman, 1996), steering the audience away from any empathy towards the pirates. While the film is tonally very different to the others in this essay, particularly with its pro-US action movie third act (Bradshaw, 2013) and lack of left wing agenda discussed below, it demonstrates that similar techniques may result in radically different outcomes for an audience. How Captain Phillips himself is portrayed many reports suggest that he was far from the hero Tom Hanks portrayed (Child, 2013) – together with casting twenty-eight-year-old Barkhad Abdi as the supposed sixteen-year-old pirate leader Muse, infers that Greengrass is fulfilling his role as propagandist by glamourising the US Navy’s actions (Tunzelmann, 2017).

Sound and lighting are also important elements in presenting the films as propaganda and highlighting the directors’ objectives. For example, in Lindholm’s Kapringen, the juxtaposition of the old, poorly lit, rusty cargo ship and the modern, clean, and very bright offices in which the shipping company operates: the lighting highlights the difference in status between the two groups and frames the experiences of negotiation appropriately, casting the rich in control whilst workers are left to suffer as a result of corporate unwillingness to prioritise the crew over deals. Sound, on the other hand, is used very effectively by Hodierne in Fishing Without Nets to draw attention to the gulf between the Somali fishermen and those profiting from the cargo ships. The opening shot of Fishing Without Nets, for example, is a long range shot that pans around the cargo ship, framing its stature against the backdrop of the horizon and providing an ominous hint of what is to come as a result of the strong, loud, and extremely tense notes of the soundtrack. Similar music is played over the transportation of the character Abdi through the streets, which highlights the abject poverty in which they live. The cinematic language of both films here can broadly be considered to bear a left-wing agenda, specifically in that they lend proper representation to the disempowered by providing an interpretation of actuality (Wells, 2012).

In conclusion, the analysis within this essay points to three specific films and by extension, the directors responsible for them, constituting propaganda that is designed to alert their audiences to the problems and issues surrounding modern piracy and the general Western attitude to humanity. Each of the three movies clearly adopts a different position in relation to the factors that underpin piracy and the perspective that is presented, clearly supplemented by carefully choreographed cinematography and judicious editing. For example, the juxtaposition of the MV Rosen and the offices in Kapringen is effective in highlighting the prioritisation of money over human life, whereas the framing of the narrative in Fishing Without Nets highlights the plight of the Somalis and the reasons why they pursue piracy as a valid course of action. The cinematic language and techniques used emphasise the need to approach piracy in disparate ways; each film pursues a specific agenda that calls on the political establishment to take what they deem appropriate courses of action. In all three films, Lindholm, Hodierne, and Greengrass have carefully constructed their cinematic products to influence public opinion on the topic of modern piracy and by extension, Western attitudes to humanity and money, encouraging viewers to think about piracy in very specific ways that point back to those in power.

Bibliography

Bakke, G. (2017). Continuum of the Human. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/763379/Continuum_of_the_Human [Accessed 26 Apr. 2017].

Barnes, H. and Shoard, C. (2013). Captain Phillips: Director Paul Greengrass on his thriller starring Tom Hanks – video interview. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2013/oct/16/captain-phillips-paul-greengrass-tom-hanks-video-interview [Accessed 11 Feb. 2017].

Bradshaw, P. (2013). Captain Phillips – review. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/17/captain-phillips-review [Accessed 11 Feb. 2017].

Callahan, M. (2013). Crew members: ‘Captain Phillips’ is one big lie. [online] Available at: http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-heroism/ [Accessed 11 Feb. 2017].

Captain Phillips. (2013). Directed by P. Greengrass.

Child, B. (2013). Captain Phillips ‘no hero’ in real life, say ship’s crew. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/14/captain-phillips-tom-hanks-real-life-no-hero [Accessed 11 Feb. 2017].

Coughlan, S. and BBC (2006). Rise of modern-day pirates. BBC Magazine. [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5146582.stm [Accessed 21 Feb. 2017].

Cousins, M. (2015). The story of Film. 2nd ed. London: Pavilion.

Doughty, R. and Etherington-Wright, C. (2011). Understanding film theory: Theoretical and critical perspectives. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fishing without Nets. (2014). Directed by C. Hodierne.

Howden, D. (2013). A true-life tale of injustice left trailing in captain Phillips’ wake. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/somalia-pirate-film-captain-phillips [Accessed 11 Feb. 2017].

Jallaabasho shabaq la’aan. (2012). Directed by C. Hodierne.

Kapringen. (2013). Directed by T. Lindholm.

Lindholm, T. (2013). Kapringen. [online] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2216240/?ref_=tttr_tr_tt [Accessed 19 Feb. 2017].

Macaulay, S. (2012). Cutter Hodierne | Filmmaker Magazine. [online] Filmmaker Magazine. Available at: http://filmmakermagazine.com/people/cutter-hodierne/#.WWOJmROGPMU [Accessed 10 Jul. 2017].

Newman, K., (1997). Exploitation and the Mainstream. In G. Nowell-Smith ed. The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 509-515.

.Olsen, M. and Times, L. (2013). ‘A hijacking’ blurs line between fiction, reality. [online] Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/23/entertainment/la-et-mn-ca-indie-focus-hijacking20130623 [Accessed 22 Feb. 2017].

Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2017). propaganda – definition of propaganda in English | Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/propaganda [Accessed 10 Jul. 2017].

En.wikipedia.org. (n.d.). Richard Phillips (merchant mariner). [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Phillips_(merchant_mariner) [Accessed 10 Jul. 2017].

Richardson, J., Herzog, A., Vernallis, C., Newton, A. and Buhler, J. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of sound and image in digital media. New York, NY, United States: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, K. and Bordwell, P. (2016). Film art: An introduction. 1st ed. United States: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Thomson, D. (2014). The New Biographical Dictionary Of Film 6th Edition. 6th ed. Abacus.

Tunzelmann, A. (2017). Captain Phillips proves that America is awesome. Got it? Awesome!. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/23/captain-phillips-america-awesome-tom-hanks [Accessed 10 Jul. 2017].

Villarejo, A. (2013). Film studies: The basics. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Wells, P., (2012). The Language of Animation. In J. Nelmes ed. Introduction to Film Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.

IFC Assignment 5 – Self Reflection

Pete — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 06:19:32 +0000

IFC Assignment 5 – Self Reflection

After a very rough start to the unit, I feel that I have progressed a long way and this final essay I feel is a reflection of that progress.

Demonstration of subject-based knowledge and understanding

The idea for an essay around Danny Boyle and his potential status as an auteur was the seed planted in my head after watching T2: Trainspotting back in January and listening to the Director interviewed on the Kermode and Mayo Film podcast around the same time. I have pulled together the background reading from the course on auteur theory to structure an essay which argues a specific point of view referring to established theories and teh directors body of work.

I have to admit that my initial idea was to write establishing that Boyle was clearly an auteur, however, reading some work by media Critic in particularly Edwin Page, I felt that there over eagerness to paint Boyle as an auteur made change tack somewhat especially when closely referring to established auteur theory.

Demonstration of research skill

As mentioned above it was my research into Danny Boyles work – as seen by various media commentators in relation to established writing on auteur theory that developed my point of view in this essay.

Comparisons of the writing of Biographer Amy Raphael and media writer Edwin Page to established theories by Saris and the writing of Bordwell & Thompson, Amy Vallejo etc I feel come through strongly in the essay.

Demonstration of critical and Evaluation skills

Again an extension to the above comments that the essays is based on established literature not written from within – I have added my personal thoughts to the essay in relation to the essay but alway relating back to established theory.

If I’m disappointed in away about this aspect is I did have enough courage to pursue the aspect that therre are subtitles within the Body of work and challenge the fact that perhaps auteur theory is a little outdated.

Communication

I find this the hardest part to comment on but I feel this is a major improvement to my earlier work and is well structured and readable essay (even I do say so myself).

IFC Assignment 5

Pete — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 02:20:43 +0000

Does the filmography of Danny Boyle confirm his status as a true Auteur?

Auteur theory is used as a method of examining a film in terms of the creative expression of an individual filmmaker (Watson, 2012). The release in early 2017 of T2: Trainspotting (2017) once again raises the question of Danny Boyle’s influence upon British cinema. With Shallow Grave (1994) and Trainspotting (1996) in the 1990’s, Boyle had awoken British cinema from its post-Thatcherite slumber, and he has continued to have a knack of capturing the spirit of the times, be it the nineties’ drug scene or the aspirations of noughties’ Indian slum-dwellers (Raphael 2011). The British director does not refer to himself as an auteur (Raphael, 2011), but rather acknowledges the collaborative nature of filmmaking. However, does his embracing of a complete collaborative filmmaking process and claims by media commentators that Boyle consistently captures the cultural and social zeitgeist (Ananda, 2009; Welsh, 2015; Fortune, 2017) infer Boyle is indeed an auteur? In order to examine Boyle’s work, this essay will explore the development of auteur theory, and then attempting to find proof that Boyle’s films show thematic consistency, consider whether this is evidence of an authorial presence despite Boyle’s assertion.

“Auteur” is simply the French word for “author”; the director, as David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson have claimed, for the majority of people is “the film’s primary ‘author’” (Bordwell and Thompson, 2013). However, as John Caughie has pointed out, before the development of auteur theory, which became increasingly popular during the 1950s and 1960s, traditional film theory and criticism viewed the author of a film as the person who wrote the screenplay (Caughie, 1981).

Auteur theory originated from the French New Wave and an article published in 1954 by the French film critic and later filmmaker François Truffaut in Cahiers du Cinéma, a magazine devoted to film criticism and analysis. Truffaut’s original polemic was intended to raise questions about existing critical assumptions of the French film industry – which Truffaut believed was obsessed with “tradition de la qualité”, that is, films based mainly on adaptations of literary classics – and with the Cahier group he moved against the privileged role of writers to acknowledging more the role of directors (Etherington-Wright & Dougherty, 2011). As a result, the films of directors working outside the European tradition (primarily directors working within the Hollywood studio system), were initially ignored by mainstream film critics. Truffaut and other French film critics such as Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, Claude Chabrol, André Bazin and Eric Rohmer, developed Truffaut’s article into what came to be referred to as the “politique des auteurs”; which was intended to bring to light the work of non-European filmmakers (Etherington-Wright & Dougherty, 2011). This led to auteur theory being adopted by American critics as a central concept of film criticism (Bordwell & Thompson, 2013).

The establishment of auteur theory as a viable method of analysing the work of a director led to a re-evaluation of films made by directors working within the Hollywood studio system, such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, etc. Prior to the widespread adoption of auteur theory, films by directors working mainly in Hollywood were routinely dismissed as products of a mass production system and, therefore, devoid of any artistic merit (Watson, 2012). Indeed, critics have argued that the reason why American films were largely ignored by mainstream film criticism was because “Hollywood pictures [were] not so much custom-built as manufactured” (Caughie, 1981).

At the time of writing, Boyle has directed 13 feature films. However, unlike directors such as John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock or Quentin Tarantino, who are viewed as auteurs, Boyle’s films do not display a thematic consistency. This has not prevented media commentators such as Edwin Page from finding evidence of cinematic authorship, as discussed below. Furthermore, claims of Boyle’s auteurship are also complicated by the director’s denials of any authorial intent in his films.

Boyle’s modest thoughts correspond to one of the main criticisms of auteur theory, as Bordwell and Thompson. have noted, “Collective film production creates collective authorship” (Bordwell & Thompson., 2013). In other words, a film is a final product of a collaborative process, which incorporates a range of technical personnel from cinematographers, editors, composers, costumers, set designers and artistic directors. This point is reaffirmed by Boyle who has argued “…directors shouldn’t consider themselves special. Films are dependent on so many different people; so much of the work is not creative; it’s not about having ‘a gift’ but how well you carry out man-management. I always find it really odd when film-makers are referred to as artists. I think artists are people like Picasso.” (Raphael, 2011)

Page also argues that Boyle’s films feature abnormal psychology, which is found in nine of the director’s films (Page, 2009). However, Page’s argument is undermined by his choice of 28 Days Later (2007), where he argues that those infected display an abnormal psychology, but this is not a thematic choice: it is instead a choice made as a result of the story. Page also cites dreams and visions, references to religion, moral dilemmas, large amounts of money, subcultures, and open narratives as examples of a thematic consistency that serve to confirm Boyle’s status as an auteur (Page, 2009). However, according to traditional auteur theory, Page’s examples are merely narrative themes and do not reflect authorial intent to tap into the zeitgeist. In addition, these narrative themes are not consistent across Boyle’s films. For example, religion is not a major or relevant theme in T2: Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, or A Life Less Ordinary, and large amounts of money are not featured in Sunshine or 28 Days Later. In this respect, Page appears to have misunderstood how auteur theory should be applied and has leaned towards what Caughie has described “critical reductiveness” (Caughie, 1981), or reducing the content of Boyle’s films to a number of restrictive narrative themes.

In conclusion, while certain aspects of Boyle’s films retain a visual distinctiveness, and in films such as Trainspotting, the director successfully captured the prevailing zeitgeist through judicious use of music. Nevertheless, the majority of Boyle’s filmography, while employing contemporary and popular music, does not reveal the same level of thematic consistency.

While Boyle is an excellent conductor of the orchestra that is a film set, which shows in directorial distinctiveness, this essay has shown that the British director is not an auteur according to traditional auteur theory, consistent with Boyle’s personal point of view.