The Auteur Theory

When I first started reading the Sarris notes on the auteur theory I thought that it was interesting that they started off by saying that there really isn't a definition for the auteur theory. I thought that this was interesting as a definition of things is what I always set out for when reading notes and theories. I thought that it was important to note what he begins saying in the second paragraph of the reading. First, the auteur theory does not always give extrecinematic perception. I think that at first when reading this that it sounds strange. The notion that a bad director doesn't always mean a bad film but at the same time it does is just a little out there and confusing. I think that it is important to know that the auteur theory looks at the directorial side of film and looks the personality of director that can be seen in film. I thought that a clear example where we can see the auteur theory would be to look at Tarantino films as I think they really exemplify the auteur theory. In the Wollen reading, the quote it reveals an author where none has been seen before," really stood out to me because I feel that it really embodies what the auteur theory is about. Something that really stood out to me was how in the Sarris and Wollen reading, the director is given credit as being the auteur. However, in the Dyer article the auteur theory is reworked to allow for the actors to be the auteur. I think this is because how the actor portrays their character in the film plays a major role in how the film is going to turn out. Overall I thought that these readings were clear and gave really great insight to the auteur theory.