{"id":37552,"date":"2016-12-11T07:39:23","date_gmt":"2016-12-11T15:39:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/?p=37552"},"modified":"2016-12-11T07:39:23","modified_gmt":"2016-12-11T15:39:23","slug":"the-auteur-principle-auteur-theory-through-the-cinematic-lens-of-alfred-hitchcock-and-stanley-kubrick","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/?p=37552","title":{"rendered":"THE AUTEUR PRINCIPLE:\u00a0Auteur Theory Through The Cinematic Lens Of Alfred Hitchcock And Stanley Kubrick"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paper by Jessie Reid.<\/p>\n

\"\"The\u00a0Auteur\u00a0element in film has evolved to become the defining principle of filmmakers and the cinematic experience. This aspect of film has its inception in the earliest forays into the cinematic world of motion pictures. Through the works of filmmakers such as Cecil B. DeMille, D.W. Griffith, and Georges Melies, the first tentative steps toward this innovative form of filmmaking can been viewed. The styles, themes, and production sensibilities that are the primary tenets of this type of filmmaking aesthetic have helped to reinvent and reimagine the filmmaking process, in part due to the visionary works of directors Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick. Through an in-depth analysis of the historical context, conventions, and relevance in cinema, it will be shown that that the term Auteur was bestowed on only the most creative and innovative in the cinematic world. Through the examination of pivotal scenes from films of Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick, namely (namely\u00a0Psycho\u00a0(Alfred Hitchcock, 1960),\u00a0The Shining\u00a0(Stanley Kubrick, 1980),\u00a0Rear window\u00a0(Alfred Hitchcock, 1954), and\u00a0A Clockwork Orange\u00a0(Stanley Kubrick, 1971), and the styles, themes, and conventions connected with them, it will be revealed that both undoubtedly deserved the title of master filmmaker, or Auteur, for their groundbreaking and artistic cinematic endeavors.<\/p>\n

The history of the\u00a0Auteur\u00a0Principle in film can be traced to the emergence of a new aesthetic in the filmmaking process. As stated in the\u00a0Encyclopedia Britannica\u00a0definition of the term,\u00a0Auteur Theory\u00a0is the, \u201cTheory of filmmaking in which the director is viewed as the major creative force in a motion picture. Arising in France in the late 1940\u2019s, the auteur theory, as it was dubbed by the American film critic Andrew Sarris, was an outgrowth of the cinematic theories of Andre Bazin and Alexandre Astruc, (French film critics and theorists). A foundation stone of the French cinematic movement known as the nouvelle vague, or New Wave, the theory of director as author was principally advanced in Bazin\u2019s periodical\u00a0Cashiers du Cinema,\u00a0(founded in 1951 this French language film magazine, reinvented the basic tenets of film criticism and theory). Two of its theoreticians, Francois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard, later became major directors of the French New Wave, (style of film by youthful filmmakers rejecting the filmmaking methods of the era). This rejection of the filmmaking status quo by a group of youthful \u201cupstarts\u201d would also be the guiding principle behind the auteur movement in film in the United States in later years. The Encyclopedia Britannica also states, \u201cThe Auteur Theory, which was derived largely from Astruc\u2019s elucidation of the concept of\u00a0Camera-Stylo, (camera-pen), holds that the director, who oversees all audio and visual elements of the motion picture, is more considered the \u201cauthor\u201d of the movie than is the writer of the screenplay. In other words, such fundamental visual elements as camera placement, blocking, lighting, and scene length, rather than plot line, convey the message of the film\u201d (1). These elements of convention used to determine the \u201cauthor\u201d of the film through their directorial style, are exemplified in the techniques used by directors Hitchcock and Kubrick in their various motion pictures.<\/p>\n

The Auteur Principle, in one form or another, has always been a facet of the filmmaking process. As contended earlier in this essay, the auteur principle could be seen in the initial forays in to film for innovative directors such as Georges Melies, and acclaimed directors D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille. Conventions such as special effects, fantastical narratives, and a childlike ghoulishness and be seen in the works of Melies, while Griffith and DeMille used unknown actors, (also a staple of later Auteurs), realistic sets, close-ups, parallel editing, artistic Mise-en-scene, and sadistic sensuality), to claim authorship of their respective works. As stated in\u00a0Flashback: A Brief History of Film, (Giannetti, Eyman, 2010),\u201d The problem with superlative talent is that it is always original, and always moves inexorably to express itself\u201d. This creative vision is the foundation that these directors helped to anchor into place and on which directors such as Kubrick and Hitchcock, laid their own bricks of styles and sensibilities.\u00a0 This contention is seen in\u00a0Flashback, when it states that, \u201cMelies, Griffith, and DeMille had done their best work. It was time for their insights and innovations to be adopted and utilized by others\u201d (29). By adopting the innovative precepts that defined earlier directors, the directors that followed, (such as Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick), were able to imagine motion pictures in a new and wondrous light.<\/p>\n

The ascension of Auteur Theory in the 1960\u2019s helped to usher in a new, dynamic form of cinema. This rise of the role of the director in motion pictures can be ascertained through the tumultuous events in film that occurred in the late 50\u2019s and early 60\u2019s. As asserted in\u00a0Flashback, \u201cThe Hollywood studios were crumbling financially, yet their products, mostly big-budget spectacle pictures, were lavishly produced, the overripe artifacts of an era of artistic decadence. Reeling from the competition of television, the industry cut back on production, averaging only 159 movies per year throughout the decade. By 1962, box office receipts in real dollars had shriveled to less than half the industry\u2019s peak year, (1946). Hundreds of movie theaters across the country were closing for lack of product, and lack of audiences\u201d (222). This \u201cperfect storm\u201d of outdated narratives and rising production costs, studios being purchased by corporations, (conglomeration), the invention of television, and the youthful cynicism and rebellious nature of the\u00a0burgeoning\u00a0counter-culture movement\u00a0and their fascination with the European \u201cArt Cinema\u201d aesthetic, was the final death knell for the traditional Hollywood motion picture and its use of form and content. Though the traditional Hollywood conventions would have a renaissance in later decades, even this reemergence would be borne out by directors, (and those influenced by them), who began their careers actively seeking to dismantle and reinvent it.<\/p>\n

This 60\u2019s and the ascension of the Auteur helped to bring a new philosophy to the act of directing motion pictures, especially in the United States. This can be examined in the assertion by Encyclopedia Britannica concerning this period when it states, \u201cBefore conglomeration had completely restructured the industry, however, there was an exciting period of experimentation as Hollywood made various attempts to attract a new audience among the nation\u2019s youth. In an effort to lure members of the first \u201ctelevision generation\u201d into movie\u00a0theaters, the studios even recruited\u00a0directors from the rival medium, such as\u00a0Irvin Kershner\u00a0(A Fine Madness, 1966),\u00a0John Frankenheimer(Seconds, 1966),\u00a0Sidney Lumet\u00a0(The Pawnbroker, 1965),\u00a0Robert Altman\u00a0(Countdown, 1968),\u00a0Arthur Penn(Mickey One, 1965), and\u00a0Sam Peckinpah\u00a0(Major Dundee, 1965). These directors collaborated with film-school-trained cinematographers (including\u00a0Conrad Hall,\u00a0Haskell Wexler, and\u00a0William Fraker), as well as with the Hungarian-born cinematographers\u00a0Laszlo Kovacs\u00a0and\u00a0Vilmos Zsigmond, to bring the heightened cinematic consciousness of the French New Wave to the American screen. Their films frequently exhibited unprecedented political and social consciousness as well\u201d (22). This deviation from the Classical Hollywood convention of film to a more \u201cArt\u201d type of film also precipitated the rise of filmmaker Roger Corman. While directing and producing for AIP (American International Pictures, an independent studio), he helped to mentor many of the directors and actors that would go on to fame and fortune in the \u201cNew Hollywood\u201d.<\/p>\n

The latter part of the decade, (60\u2019s) would usher in the \u201cFilm School Brats\u201d and other Auteurs such as Stanley Kubrick. The Encyclopedia Britannica states regarding this latter part of the era that, \u201cThe years 1967\u201369 marked a turning point in American film history as\u00a0Bonnie and Clyde\u00a0(Arthur Penn,1967),\u00a02001: A Space Odyssey(Stanley Kubrick,1968),\u00a0The Wild Bunch\u00a0(Sam Peckinpah,1969),\u00a0Medium Cool\u00a0(Haskell Wexler,1969), and\u00a0Easy Rider\u00a0(Dennis Hopper,1969) attracted the youth market to\u00a0theaters\u00a0in record numbers. The films were unequal\u00a0aesthetically, but all shared a cynicism toward established values and a fascination with apocalyptic violence. There was a sense, however briefly, that such films might provide the catalyst for a cultural revolution. Artistically, the films domesticated New Wave camera and editing techniques, enabling once-radical practices to enter the mainstream cinema narrative. Financially, they were so successful that producers quickly saturated the market with low-budget youth-culture movies, only a few of which,\u00a0Alice\u2019s Restaurant\u00a0(Arthur Penn, 1969),\u00a0Woodstock(Michael Wadleigh,1970), and\u00a0Gimme Shelter\u00a0(David and Albert Maysles,1970)\u2014achieved even limited distinction. Concurrent with the youth-cult boom was the new permissiveness toward sex made possible by the institution of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings system in 1968. Unlike the Production Code, this system of self-regulation did not prescribe the content of films but merely categorized them according to their appropriateness for young viewers. (G designates general audiences; PG suggests parental guidance; PG-13 strongly cautions parents because the film contains material inappropriate for children under 13; R indicates that the film is restricted to adults and to persons under 17 accompanied by a parent or guardian; and X or NC-17 signifies that no one under 17 may be admitted to the film\u2014NC meaning \u201cno children.\u201d In practice, the X rating has usually been given to unabashed pornography and the G rating to children\u2019s films, which has had the effect of concentrating sexually explicit but serious films in the R and NC-17 categories.) The introduction of the ratings system led immediately to the production of serious, nonexploitative adult films, such as\u00a0Midnight Cowboy\u00a0(John Schlesinger,1969) and\u00a0Carnal Knowledge(Mike Nichols,1971), in which sexuality was treated with a maturity and realism unprecedented on the American screen\u201d (23-4).<\/p>\n

The Auteur use of dynamic new conventions of style, theme, and format, can be examined in the similarities of these conventions in the films of Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick. Both directors during their respective times, (with an overlap during the climactic times of 60\u2019s and 70\u2019s) used their skills as \u201cauthors\u201d of their respective films to bring a unique and non-traditional new insight to the cinematic process. As contended in,\u00a0From The Writer\u2019s Chair:An Exploration into the works of Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock,\u00a0\u201cIn modern cinema both Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock are held as luminaries of their profession. Their pictures have visually, socially, and culturally influenced generations of moviegoers, not to mention aspiring actors, writers, and directors. With Hitchcock consistently referred to as \u201cThe Master of Suspense\u201d, and Kubrick an undeniable genius, their collective impact upon modern cinema could not have been greater\u201d (1). The assertion that these two cinematic masters influenced an entire generation of moviegoers and filmmakers is seen in the reintroduction and rerelease of films from both Auteurs and the influence of their styles that can be seen in the work of contemporary directors, most notably,\u00a0Rear Window(Alfred Hitchcock, 1954)\/Blow Out, Dressed to Kill\u00a0(Brian De Palma,1980-1),\u00a0Psycho\u00a0(Alfred Hitchcock,1960)\/Halloween\u00a0(John Carpenter, 1978),\u00a0The Shining\u00a0(Stanley Kubrick,1980)\/1408\u00a0(Mikeal Hafstrom, 2007), and\u00a0A Clockwork Orange\u00a0(Stanley Kubrick,1971)\/Requiem for a Dream\u00a0(Darren Aronofsky, 2000). The similar styles and themes in the later works to the films of Hitchcock and Kubrick, (Lighting, Mise-en-scene, editing, etc.) gives us a glimpse of the enduring fortitude of these two visionary auteurs.<\/p>\n

Through an examination of scenes from Rear Window, Psycho, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining, the similar aspects of the \u201cauthor\u201d style of Hitchcock and Kubrick will be revealed. Stanley Kubrick (7\/26\/28-3\/7\/99) and Alfred Hitchcock (8\/13\/99-4\/29\/80), both achieved an unparalleled legacy in their respective careers. Their ability to court heightened emotional states and controversy have left an indelible mark on the artistic world of motion pictures. As asserted in\u00a0Blind Spots and Mind Games: Performance, Motivation, and Emotion in the films of Stanley Kubrick\u00a0(Aaron Taylor, 2016) \u201cOne of the principal characteristics of classical cinema, it is said, is that the films that adhere to this group style should be comprehensible and unambiguous\u201d (5). This blanket statement fails to take into account the unrestrained mind of the auteur Kubrick. Aaron Taylor in\u00a0Blind Spots\u00a0further states that, \u201cAnd yet certain films working within the Hollywood tradition resist classical cinema\u2019s \u201cexcessive obviousness\u201d. Stanley Kubrick\u2019s genre outings are amongst the more celebrated of these narrationally obtuse films\u201d (6). This assertion can easily be applied to Mr. Hitchcock as well. The breath of their works and their ability to use the various tenets of Cinematography, Lighting, Mise-en-scene, Sound, and Editing, gives their works a verisimilitude, (sometimes one that is surreal), that has remained relevant and engaging as the decades pass.<\/p>\n

Alfred Hitchcock\u2019s\u00a0Rear Window\u00a0and Kubrick\u2019s\u00a0A Clockwork Orange\u00a0share attributes that are the hallmarks of a visionary auteur. In the Lo-key lit, medium framed to close-up, long take scene of the final confrontation between\u00a0\u201cJeff\u201d Jeffries\u00a0(James Stewart) and the deranged salesman\u00a0Lars Thorwald\u00a0(Raymond Burr), we see many of the same conventions that are ingrained in the surreal scene of\u00a0Alex DeLarge\u00a0(Malcolm McDowell) attempting to commit suicide by throwing himself from the window of the home of\u00a0Frank Alexander\u00a0(Patrick Magee), to escape the sounds of Beethoven\u2019s Ninth Symphony. As stated in,\u00a0From the Writers Chair, \u201cThe visual style of this picture is masterful, although the idea of the voyeur witnessing a murder was nothing new nor unique, the manner in which Hitchcock presents it is singular\u201d (6). This innovative aspect can be seen in both scenes as murder or suicide in film is nothing new, only the way in which they are presented can be unique. Both scenes use dynamic non-diegetic music to accentuate the action in the narrative, and Long Takes, Realistic Mise-en-scene, and Medium to Close-up shots to give us a subjective view of the events taking place.\u00a0 There is also the distinctive symbolism that both directors were renowned for as \u201cJeff\u201d, the morally ambiguous voyeur protagonist has to fend off the frantic antagonist in the person of Lars Thorwald, while our morally bankrupt protagonist in Alex DeLarge fends off the attack by the distressed victim in the guise of Mr. Alexander. The Hitchcockian conventions of falling from a high place, suspense, sexuality, the perfect murder, and the ordinary person are seen throughout this scene in A Clockwork Orange and the narrative of Rear Window. Similarly, these same conventions can be found intertwined into the narrative of other films by these to \u201cauthors\u201d setting into place their respective individual styles.\u00a0 \u00a0Throughout the entirety of these two pivotal scenes we see the \u201cauthorship\u2019\u201d in the distinctive patterns of conventions that are used to engage the audience and allow the narrative to remain cohesive and suspenseful.<\/p>\n

The same similarities of conventions can be examined in the shower scene from Psycho and the final conflict scene from The Shining. As examined in, From the Writer\u2019s Chair, \u201cThe films of Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock often focus on stories surrounding the darker sides of life\u201d (2). This fascination for the macabre was a staple of both directors and as contended by, From the Writer\u2019s Chair, \u201cSome of the most starling images in contemporary cinema occur in Kubrick\u2019s The Shining\u201d (10). This ability to use images to terrify and emotionally titillate the audience was also an aspect of the works of Mr. Hitchcock. As Jeanne T. Allen contends in her examination of R. Barton\u2019s\u00a0\u201cThe Metafictional Hitchcock: The Experience of Viewing and the Viewing of Experience in Rear Window and Psycho (Cinema Journal, Winter 1985), \u201cHitchcock stayed in the audience\u2019s guts even as he mastered the formal techniques for doing so\u201d (54). Throughout the Lo-key lit, Medium-framed to close-up scenes, that employed jump-cut editing to achieve the frenetic sensation that was at the core of both scenes, we see the masterful styles and techniques that are examined by Ms. Allen and, From the Writer\u2019s Chair. The seminal shower scene of\u00a0Norman Bates\u00a0(Anthony Perkins) in the guise of \u201cmother\u201d attacking and killing\u00a0Marion Crane(Janet Leigh), holds the same tension and suspense that permeates the final maze scene of\u00a0Jack Torrance\u00a0(Jack Nicholson) in a maddened state attempting to kill his wife\u00a0Wendy Torrance\u00a0(Shelley Duvall) and his son\u00a0Danny(Danny Lloyd). The use of the theme conventions of sexuality, the ordinary man, the likable sociopath, mothers, the perfect murder, and silent scenes, are the foundation for the mayhem and surreal verisimilitude that is ingrained in both cinematic representations. The ability of both auteurs to \u201cstay in the audience\u2019s guts\u201d make these two snippets of celluloid terror at once thrilling and extremely engaging.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the respective works that are examined by these auteurs give us an insight into visionary minds honed on perfecting their craft. As stated in, From the Writer\u2019s Chair, \u201cThe films of Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock incorporate distinctive visual styles, have far reaching social connotations, and are revered in today\u2019s modern culture as yardsticks\u2019 for other filmmakers to aspire to. Twenty-six years after Hitchcock\u2019s death and almost ten since Kubrick\u2019s passing, their collective legacies are cemented\u201d (12). Indeed, much like tombstones in a decrepit, foreboding graveyard, the chiseled in stone testaments to the works of these two prolific auteurs are forever frozen in time, daring today\u2019s filmmakers and audiences to creep forward on any given gloomy night, and interpret them.<\/p>\n

WORKS CITED\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

R. Barton\u2019s \u201cThe Metafictional Hitchcock: The Experience of Viewing and the Viewing of Experience in Rear Window and Psycho. Allen, Jeanne. T., (Cinema Journal, Winter 1985) (54)
\n\u00a0
\nFrom The Writer\u2019s Chair: An Exploration into the works of Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock.\u00a0(Online Blog, 2016) (1,2,10,12)
\n\u00a0
\nBlind Spots and Mind Games: Performance, Motivation, and Emotion in the films of Stanley Kubrick\u00a0(Taylor, Aaron. University of Texas Press, 2016) (5-6)
\n\u00a0
\nEncyclopedia Britannica\u00a0(web articles, 2001) (1,22, 23-4)
\n\u00a0
\nFlashback: A Brief History of Film\u00a0(Giannetti, Louis, Eyman, Scott. Pearson Publishing, 2010) (29,222)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paper by Jessie Reid. The\u00a0Auteur\u00a0element in film has evolved to become the defining principle of filmmakers and the cinematic experience. This aspect of film has its inception in the earliest forays into the cinematic world of motion pictures. Through the works of filmmakers such as Cecil B. DeMille, D.W. Griffith, and Georges Melies, the first […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[72,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academic-papers","category-films"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=37552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37552\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=37552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=37552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studentfilmreviews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=37552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}