Critical Approaches to Film

Genre/ Auteur Essay

Option 1:

What is genre theory? What is auteur theory? What will your essay be about/ cover?

Option 2:

What are the differences between auteur and genre theory? (Briefly)Which have you decided will be more relevant to the film in question?What will your essay cover?

Option 3: Explain they are different approaches to film criticism. That they have advantages and disadvantages in being used for critical analysis. Debate from critics and criticism?

Introductions…

Will you be using ‘I’ or not? Choose and then stick with that.

Way of writing

Content of your essay…

Brief background to the auteur theory / genre theory. Examples of where it came from.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the theory? e.g. not taking into consideration others involved in the film. Hitchcock - his films are based on novels. By focusing on the mise-en-scene, the writing is ignored.

Does the film use elements of the genre to construct the director’s own vision.

How much creative control did the director have?

Who else has thoughts on the genre theory?

Who else has thoughts on the auteur theory?

Are these thoughts positive or negative towards the theories?

Jim Kitses believes the director rather than the form has occupied critical attention (2000).

If the director receives more attention then the auteur theory is favoured.

Explain what the auteur theory is used for: it’s about personal authorship in cinema. Used to study a director’s works by tracing characteristic themes, structures, formal qualities.

What genre is your film? What recognisable generic conventions are in your film? (Think about storylines etc…)

Pinpoint specific ones and draw on scenes/ parts of the film.

Can the idea of an auteur director be applied to your director?

Are there personal marks at play?

Which ones can you list? Draw on specific scenes and parts of the film to highlight your points.

Does your director move away from typical conventions of the genre?

Which examples can you give?

Think about the characters, are these traditional representations of the genre?

Are the characters also typical of the director? e.g. Hawksian male and female?

What are the themes of the film? Typical of the genre?

Typical of the director? If it is the latter then is auteur theory more useful?

Are there any critics/ writers that can back this up too?

e.g. Andrew Sarris describes Ford as a director who would ‘often soar beyond genre conventions’ (Sarris. 1976. 41)

If your director moves away from typical conventions, then is genre theory still worth applying?

Surely auteur theory would be more useful because the director is putting their own spin on the conventions?

Where can you see your director’s style in their other films as well as the one under discussion?

E.G. Ford working with the same cast.

Is there a negative aspect to being an auteur? Using the same faces? Same styles? What are the positive aspects of it? Is the film limited by the auteur director?

Are the two theories at opposition with each other in the film?

Do both theories have uses? Are they both relevant?

How relevant is the auteur theory? Can the director’s personal marks of authorship be seen? (Give a few brief examples that you’ve already discussed). What about genre?Which is more useful? Which will be more relevant when studying the film?

Conclusion