Auteurism Anybody??

In 1954 Francois Truffaut first engraved the word 'auteurism' on the landscape of cinema, and with it began a divisive debate. Can a film only reach high art status when it is a result of one person's unique vision? Yet further still, how can such a vision be implemented in such a collaborative medium?

Due largely to this inherent conflict, this writer has always held strong scepticism and ambivalence towards auteurism. The construction of film calls on several outside factors that are difficult for one figure to control. Performance, lighting, sound design and costume to name but a few. It seems frankly illogical to place artistic merit on the shoulders of one, when ignoring the efforts and passions of many.

However, the more one studies what are commonly regarded as 'The Great Films', the more difficult it becomes to dispute the notion of auteurism. When analysing a body of work, in comparison to just singular movies, you begin to discover unifying factors that encapsulate a director's beliefs. Factors that have survived the change around of hundreds of crew members, throughout a number of different pictures. Such reoccurrences in theme and style, support Truffaut's idealistic proclamation of a singular vision.

Perhaps there is a direct correlation between high end cinema and auteurism after all. Because for a film to be truly effective in what it is trying to say to an audience, and for it to stand above average cinematic fair. Every artistic element needs to be working in harmony. Every element needs to be executed with deliberate and thoughtful intent. Only one mind could conceivably orchestrate such a performance. The minds of many would surely only fog and confuse such a difficult task.

Conclusive evidence seems to lie within the short film form. Watch the earliest efforts of great contemporary directors and you can clearly see that the same preoccupations and techniques within these films, have gone on to embody all of their movies thereafter. Wheather working with a crew of 200 or a crew of 4, there voices speak with exactly the same clarity.

Exhibit A; Martin Scorsese's The Big Shave/Viet '67 (1967) is a case and point.

In Search of Contemporary Hero's

Firstly; a confession. Due to slightly geeky tendencies, the following musing may be a little biased towards just how culturally significant the comic book movie actually is. That being said, with Spiderman 3 breaking box office records in Asia (and due to have a similar impact this weekend in the UK), it seems like an apt time to assess the importance of the spandex clad hero. 'Superheroes' have always been prevalent in the art scene. From oral poetry in Grecian times to the dour adventures of Sherlock Holmes, there has always been a narcissistic fascination towards such idyllic figures.

It is not surprising to learn that the popularity of the ‘superhero’ surfaces most amid times of turmoil and conflict. The golden age of the American comic book is widely acknowledged as the 40's and 50's, coinciding with the Second World War and its subsequent aftermath. Such a cultural correlation could be seen as symptomatic of our need to revert to the fantastical in times of hardship. Thus, during the 80's and 90's the comic book movie was never quite in vogue. Tim Burton momentarily resurrected the Batman franchise for a period, only for it to be bastardised in to a camp charade by Joel Shumacher. It was not until 2001 that the fortune of the comic book movie changed.

2001 is a year that has now become synonymous with words and phrases such as al-Qeada and weapons of mass destruction, a year when world concerns were drastically altered. 2001 is also the year that Bryan Singer's X-Men was busy achieving a cult status on DVD. Singer’s X-Men hit a distinctive chord with audiences. What followed was an avalanche of comic book films. Another two X-Men films, 3 Spiderman films, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, the reinvention of both the Batman and Superman franchises to name but a few. And with the new Fantastic Four, Batman, Hulk, Transformers and Iron Man films imminent, such over-saturation seems unrelenting. 2000 and beyond can certainly be regarded as a new golden era for the genre.

It can be strongly argued that such a sudden influx of comic book films is simply due to the fact that major studio's are cashing in on the sheer advancement in digital/special effects technology over recent years. A return to the ‘Cinema of Attractions’ so to speak. But a closer analysis does highlight a distinct tonal difference between this new era of comic book movie, and the ones that preceded them.

Earnest and mature are perhaps words to set this current crop of movies apart from earlier efforts. Gone is Wolverine’s garish yellow outfit, only to be replaced by a black leather one. Even Superman’s vibrant colours have been severely muted in his most recent outing. It all reek’s of seriousness. This is further emphasised by the way in which comic book metaphors are becoming less and less subtle. One of the central images to last years Superman, was that of our hero rescuing a falling aeroplane. The political wrangling in X-Men can be seen to evoke the contemporary debate on immigration, and it is notable that all the villains within this genre use violence as a method to pursue their goals, a notion otherwise known as terrorism. There is a clear targeting of adult issues. It is as if we are constantly being reminded that these films are about our struggles and about our lives, as if they provide some sort of medicinal and morale boosting purpose. “With great power, comes great responsibility” screams the mantra. Perhaps this is all just a little over dramatic, after all this is a phrase rarely heard around the offices of Bush and Blair. Is it simply ludicrous to believe the comic book movie has any cultural relevance?

Critics argue that comic book movies are simply a vacuous and commercial response to societies ills, that they do nothing more than detract audience attention away from more pressing issues. Simply popcorn fair that takes away the screen time from more high brow, culturally significant films. Merely escapism masquerading as serious polemic. While this may be partly true, one should not underestimate the importance of escapism in a healthy culture. To take a more romantic view, can escapism not be viewed as a social necessity too? After all, it is nothing more than a longing for change, a hope for something different. And without hope, dreams and ambitions can never be forged.