Are cinematographers the real auteurs?

R

rc444

Well-known member
As far as auteur theory is concerned, could there be a counter-argument that could say that the cinematographer is actually the real auteur of a film?

If you wanted to, you could argue that the DOP is the true image maker, insofar as he has to create the look of the film. He's the one actually using tools to create the look. The director doesn't physically create the look himself, he simply ensures that he gets the look he wants.

There could be other interpretations, of course.
 
"Physically" has nothing to do with it IMHO. The director has the vision, and the DOP makes it possible. (some directors do both) Mozart did not play every instrument in the orchestra. This could be discussed and debated to no end.
 
As a director of photography, it hurts to say no, we are not the real auteur. The director is definately the quarterback... but we are the receivers. :)

With that being said, I would also like to say the DoP is usually the more experienced one. I've seen too many DoP's having to step in and hold a directors hand then vice versa.

I guess the receivers have to run the ball sometimes.


God I love sports analogies!
 
I think the problem lies when some directors completely refuse to acknowledge the collaborative aspect of filmaking and fool themselves into thinking it's all them. It's dellusional, but perhaps required for some folks to make great films. I listened to an interview with Michael Crichton and he said something to the effect that he prefers writing novels over directing movies because writing novels allow for that sense of complete vision vs movies being a collaboration of the many experts required to make a film.
 
I think the people who are most overlooked in the auteur debate are writers. Filmmaking is a collaborative medium, but it's the poor screenwriters who get the bum steer more than anyone. In most Hollywood movies they don't even seem to have them!
 
Take TAXI DRIVER for instance. GREAT movie. Everyone knows it was directed by Scorcese and starred De Niro. But not everyone knows who wrote it (Paul Schrader). I think Pacino or Nicholson or Hoffman could have given fascinating interpretations of Travis Bickle, and Coppola or Polanski etc. could have directed it really well, but ultimately it boils down to a terrific screenplay.

NOT that I'm knocking Scorcese or De Niro AT ALL - they're amazing. But filmmaking is storytelling first and foremost.

And no I'm NOT a writer!
 
I'd put the DP at least third in line behind the writer and director. But that's considering traditional narrative. A guy can pick up a camera, shoot everyday life without a script in an evocative style and suddenly he's both writer and director.

I just do it all and get to call myself auteur.
 
rc444 said:
As far as auteur theory is concerned, could there be a counter-argument that could say that the cinematographer is actually the real auteur of a film?

If you wanted to, you could argue that the DOP is the true image maker, insofar as he has to create the look of the film. He's the one actually using tools to create the look. The director doesn't physically create the look himself, he simply ensures that he gets the look he wants.

There could be other interpretations, of course.
Click to expand...

isnt a DOP and a cinematographer the same job basically
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top