I believe Ford and Toland remained faithful to the spirit of the book in the “match” scene near the beginning of the movie. The shadows cast upon the faces of the farmers during this scene seemed very chaotic, and went well thematically with the dust storm outside. It served as a visual metaphor for their helplessness before the whirlwind of confusion sweeping them off their land. They should get some credit for staying true to the spirit of the book for this scene and the first half of the movie in general. But the second half departs from the essence of the book and sends a different message altogether in the end. An Auteur should be judged on the entirety of their work, not on a single scene. If I were to judge solely on the scene I’d say yes, they would be Auteurs. But if they are to be evaluated for their faithfulness to adapting the book into an entire film, I would then say that they failed to be true Auteurs.
I understand why critics would dismiss Auteur theory. At first, I was leaning towards their line of reasoning. The question I kept coming back to was this: “Shouldn’t every film be judged solely on the content of the film?” In fact, I still agree that films should be judged as if you know nothing about the director, to keep from introducing bias into one’s judgment. After all, aren’t films mainly viewed by the generally uninformed audience member? However, I think Auteur theory still has its uses within film studies and in the film industry. I think that if a director brings a certain style into all of his or her films, it can be easier for a production studio to know what they will be getting by signing onto any of the director’s projects. The way that I believe Auteur theory benefits the general audience is that by bringing a certain visual and aesthetic style into each of a director’s films, the director will naturally become better pulling off “cinematic” moments.
I have to disagree that the unfaithfulness to the original product makes the director anything less than an auteur film maker. In fact, I think him going in his own direction makes him more auteur then anything else. He's specifically implants his vision of things into the film. He wants us to see things in a particular way, like you said in the first half of the film. For example, when he's showing us the tractor montage of impending doom, it's to give us that desperate feeling that his characters have, as well as just being scary, at least for the 1940's when people were still afraid of the sun or whatever. But changing the intent and what happens in the second half is exactly the kind of thing an auteur would do. Because if he had told the story like the book, then it wouldn't be his. He would be doing a cover, where as he wanted to do something more like when Johnny Cash covered "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails, (or something, pick whatever drastically different music cover you want). Johnny Cash had to make the song "his" by performing it in a way that was distinctly of his own style. He has to tell his type of story with his own intent and meaning. That is the auteur way, to tell the story you need to tell, even if it's at the expense of the subject matter, the source material, the actors or even the whole genre.
ReplyDeleteI think auteur theory has a place in this world. While it is usually true that ultimately it doesn't matter what the intent of the film was on the individual viewer level, like for example if the viewer is offended by something racist that Quentin Tarantino says in his film, it isn't in the power of said director to say that said viewer should not feel that way as it would be minimizing and erasing. But at the same time, like any side of an argument, the director has a valid point on the stance they take on their creation that can be taken into consideration (or not) by the viewer. I think auteur theory is important in at least providing the option, but the implications that we HAVE to consider the director's intent when analyzing the film ourselves is not only problematic, but also out dated for our more knowledgeable and broad-scoped film community.