IFC Assignment 5 – 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 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.