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).
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. 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.
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 notably absent from 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 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.
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. 10th Edn. London & New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
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.
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. 5th 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].