As we discussed in class, auteur theory is multifaceted and flexible. To me, there isn’t one specific definition or list of characteristics that make someone fit into the framework of auteur theory; I think that is what makes it so complex and thought provoking. One thing that has been bugging me since our class discussion is the tension between interior meaning and possessing a body of work. Sarris, in both the summary of his earlier work found in Understanding Film Theory and the article we read in Critical Visions in Film Theory, touches on the need for films to have an interior meaning. According to Sarris, auteur theory can inform the interior meaning that is attributed to a film. The elements that make the film, especially those that create a specific technique and personal style, come together to inform the its interior meaning.
When thinking about interior meaning in relation to the importance of possessing a body of work, the question for me arises is: does interior meaning have to span a body of work? To me, the interior meaning refers to the deeper themes that the filmmaker is trying to explore. But say a filmmaker explores a specific theme in one film and decides to explore something completely different in his next film. Would people not perceive the filmmaker as an auteur? Is the exploration of a specific theme intrinsically tied to a signature style of a director? This seems limiting in terms of what a director can and can’t explore through storytelling.
To me, the director that breaks the convention of auteurism is David O’Russell. His films span a wide variety of themes. I must admit that I have seen a number of his films, but most of them I saw at a time when I wasn’t thinking very critically about film form and how it influences the meaning of a film. That being said, I believe that O’Russell has proven himself to be a talented director who is able to explore a number of themes as wide ranging as American hegemony, as seen in Three Kings, and as intimate as finding love, as seen in Silver Linings Playbook. I don’t see his films as connected in terms of interior meaning or personal visual style. But does that mean that he does not possess a certain amount of authorship over his films? The interior meanings in each of his films seem to exist within that one specific world he creates, they don’t seem to carry over from one film to the next. Does that mean that one cannot think of each of his films as “a David O’Russell film”?