Film-making by John Ford - Essay Example

Outline 0. Introduction: John Ford 2.0. Discussion 2 The Auteur Theory 2.2. Advantages of Perceiving a Director as an 2.3. Disadvantagesof Perceiving a Director as an Author. 3.0. Conclusion 1.0. Introduction: John Ford. John Ford was a director in the American film industry and won four academy awards for his works. In his 50 year career, Ford directed a total of 140 films, all of which were classics, making him one of the most important and successful filmmakers of his time. John had an intense personality and quite idiosyncratic. He, for instance, did not like use of foul language and disrespecting a woman in any way. He was articulate in his work and despite being a heavy drinker and smoker, he never drunk or smoked when directing as this would interfere with his work. Although ford was quite intelligent and sensitive and sentimental, he always protected himself by portraying the image of a hard-drinker, tough Irish man. Ford naturally had a distinct style and unique thematic orientations that were displayed in his visual and aural works throughout his work as a director. His articulate nature was characteristic in his films as he rarely wrote his stories down, just memorizing them but always turning out well. His favourite song ‘shall we gather vat the river’ was used as a rendition in a number of his films. 2.0. Discussion. 2.1. The Auteur Theory. This theory, which translates to Author in English, cites that during the criticism of a film, the director of the film is perceived as an author since the film reflects his personal creativity and vision. In legal terms, a film is viewed as a work of art that the director, who then ids the author has the original copyright to the film. This theory was first developed and adopted in France and later spread to America and the USA. According to Aleixandre Astruc, a film director uses a camera just as a writer uses a pen for his work. This theory, according to Andrew Sarris, demanded that a director should be competent in his technique, add their personal style in the way that the movie looked and felt, and an inside meaning to the movie besides the one portrayed. The theory further proposes that all films are good or bad, this depending on the director directing them. A good film is that which bears the director’s ‘signature’ that can be manifested in the film through his personality or recurring themes within the film. In agreement to with this theory, we can say that to a large extent, a film director is the author of his films. As prescribed by the theory, Ford was an author of his films with his personality and idiosyncrasies dominating the themes in his films and the way actors and other crew members carried out their roles. Just as an author writes down ideas as they come to his mind, so did Ford put ideas into action as they came without having to edit them. Ford worked with a consistent team comprising creative persons, engaged himself in every aspect of making a film as he directed, write and edited the film and he tended to prefer working within a genre such as the Westerns. All these features bring Ford out as an auteur whose films came out with a personal touch. Popular critics as Anderson argued the case of Ford as a staunch author by his adoption of the westerns more than the effectiveness of the theme of his works. As the theory gained momentum in Hollywood, writers and authors of print refuted the idea of a film director being branded an author as the film script was just a blueprint for the film scenes and could not be compared to literary works. The theory and the idea of film directors identifying themselves with the theory, however, vanished in the 20th and 21st century in the US as they argued that they were just directors in their own right (Nelmes, 2003: 189). 2.2. Advantages of perceiving a Director as an Author. There are many benefits of viewing the director as the author of a film. Using this theory, critics and film analysts are able to assess and trace the origin of recurring themes in a film to the nature and person of the director John ford. This way, true, untended, and hidden themes that are not conspicuous as such in a particular film can be analyzed effectively to add on to the meaning and worth of a film. This explains why some films of Ford’s films may have seemed plain simple on surface turned out to be academy winners because of the hidden themes. The theory also enables the critics to define and discern between a good and bad director. This is because the criteria used to identify these two sets of directors are the auteur versus the idea of metteurs-en-scene. This is one of the major problems that the theory was designed to solve: the fact that there were and are directors and those who are true and natural directors (Monaco, 1981: 67). It is for this reason that Ford is regarded as one of the greatest directors in Hollywood because he was a auteur and his films carry his personality through and through. The author theory is critical in analyzing a film using the director as the focus of the analysis or criticism. It, therefore, makes films worthy to be criticized on acclamation as opposed to mere visual display. A perfect example for this is the movie ‘Palm Beach’ that was dismissed as a failure prior to the application of the theory. When the theory was applied, however, the film’s director Preston Sturges’ idea and personality in relation with his other films were analyzed so that the film was placed among other top-ranking films (Hollows & Jancovich, 1995: 112). 2.3. Disadvantages of the Perceiving the Director as an Author. It is not an easy task to detect a director’s personal style and unique characteristics as portrayed in a film as this is the criterion that is used in analyzing a film. Failure to detect the right individual style of the director or misinterpreting his ideas can lead to making a wrong analysis of the film that may downgrade a good film. In the case of Ford, for instance, one would have to understand his personality to understand why his films were curt and more straightforward. It is reported that he would often tell actors to avoid using many words or lengthy sentences. In some instances, he would take off a whole scene to beat a deadline or reduce the talking (Hill & Church, 1998: 98). The theory places all emphasis on the director and his individuality notwithstanding the fact that the director is just one of the many persons who took part in creating and making the film. The theory excludes the societal and historical context in which a film is made in its analysis of the film. The theory requires that the director transcends history and ideology in his work. The theory fails include the social and other contexts within which the film is set in its analysis in order to capture the true feeling and theme of a film. This is because as said earlier, the theory lays a greater deal of its emphasis on the directors disregarding other factors. With John ford were other producers that played significant roles in the production of his films. These were, however, clouded in Ford’s personality as his patronizing individuality consumed theirs. Just as Ford is defined as an auteur because of his consistency and identification with the Western genre, the theory attempts to categorize all films into genres. This poses a big problem given that it is difficult to define some genres, to demarcate between two closely related genres, and the possibility that a film may not fall into any particular genre or into a multiple of genres (Cook & Bernink, 1999:87). To many scholars who were against auteurism, they argued that the perception gave more powers and authority to the director over all other persons involved in the production. This was worse in France where the concept evolved than in Hollywood where it was met with some resistance based on the idea and ideals of liberalism. Even though the Hollywood director had a little control over the topic and cast crew for the film, it was still his personality as shown in performance and camera shots that got to buy a film a title and name among others. Ford, for instance, had more and over control over other members of production. In many occasions, he disagreed with other production crew and even his bosses over how to direct his films. This reinforces the fact that auteurs in France and Hollywood were mostly individual directors who did not wish to work for companies in order to retain the right to their say during production. Ford, for instance, turned down multi-dollar contracts he was offered by firms such as 20th century and Fox (Nelmes, 2003: 251). 3.0. Conclusion. One and probably the biggest question that critics as well as supporters ask themselves is whether a film needs an author in its production. I n art, it is essential and inevitable for a work to have an author or artist whose idea is represented in a piece of work. The straight-forward type of relationship between a particular work and the author or artist or sculptor behind it does not, however, exist in the art of film making. While a writer of a play may be the undisputed author of the play, he may not be the author of the play in performance. Perceiving the director as the film author presents a kind of dilemma on what happens to the other stakeholders in the production process whose roles seem to be undermined. while the perception helps to improve and articulate more clearly the process of analyzing a film, it at the same time blurs and limits the analysis process by laying greater emphasis on the personality and individuality of the director than the course of the work itself. Reference List. Cook, P., & Bernink, M., 1999. The Cinema Book. London: BFI. Hill, J., & Church, G., 1998. The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. London: Oxford University Press. Hollows, J., & Jancovich, M., 1995. Approaches to Popular Film. London: Manchester University Press. Monaco, J., 1981. How to Read a Film: The Art, Technology, Language, History, and Theory of Film and Media. London: Oxford University Press. Nelmes, J., 2003. Introduction to Film Studies. NY: Routledge. Read More