pls disclose more about ur hate towards the auteur theory! i always love reading your thoughts and whenever you go on a long post. i first heard about it when i took a film elective - the most frequent mentioned auteur is wes anderson. i don't really understand the depth of the theory but watching his films definitely gave me understanding of what makes a film wes anderson's.

oh baby this is a big ol' can of worms, i've never tried to write this out before so we'll see where this goes.

so i don't actually have a problem with all parts of auteur theory. i think it's an important element of criticism (the form) to acknowledge that film directors can have stylistically and thematically homogenized bodies of work. all artists have specific styles and it is important to acknowledge the flags of that style. i do also believe that there are artists who are better suited to conceptual and thematic control (which does include myself to some degree). these are all good things. what i do have a problem with is how auteur theory has totally destroyed the understanding of how the conjunction between art and storytelling has been, and will always be, collaborative. there's some finer points of the theory that apply specifically to film obviously, but a fundamental, and i mean fundamental flaw with it is that it specifically seeks to identify a singular 'authorship' in a form that by nature and history has never had such a thing. there is no singular person responsible for the whole of a film, or a play. yes, there is someone who wrote the script, of which yes, the thing would not exist without. but a script is not a final form. who do you know that reads scripts like they read novels? no one, because that's not what they're for. scripts are prescriptive for the larger, holistic experience of that story. and yes a director should be the steady hand steering the ship, that is their job, but the real strength that comes with being a director is realizing and acknowledging that two or twelve brains are better than one. it is not feasible for a director to know the intricacies of every field; i've never personally met or worked with a director that actually understood costume on the level necessary to have a meaningful contribution to the design.

the whole preoccupation with 'genius' and 'someone has to be the mastermind behind all the ideas' is so so so individualistic and denies agency and credit and credibility to the tens and hundreds of people that are involved in these productions. and despite being a theory that is only about 70 years old, it has infected every form of art (especially theatre) to the form's own detriment because idiot film bros for the last forty years have been inflicting this idea that a bunch of white guys are the pinnacle of cinema because they're 'the director'. designers get so little credit for their work and obviously i'm mad about that because i've experienced it personally, but the greater ramifications of this individualistic mindset is that it even further perpetuates the idea that collaboration is inherently weaker, that admitting that you don't have all the answers or ideas is somehow a flaw, that you are a lacking artist for not being fluent in every possible avenue. and it diminishes the value of all creative work that is not concept or 'ideas' based. is the reason for wes anderson's films looking like that actually him? or is it because of his longtime director of photography robert yeoman who's worked on every single one of his live action films? or is it because of his oft recurring cast of creative collaborators? do you know the name of the set designer for the grand budapest hotel? he won an oscar for it.

tldr it's a facile theory that has overtaken the cultural mindset because it gives one person all the power and credit and it exists only to stoke men's egos because they think they're hot shit even though literally everyone else is holding them up.