Andrew Sarris makes a point about how auteurship can mis-identify what the key component is of a film when he exemplifies how Esquire Magazine  had predicted that Two-Lane Black was to be successful in theaters but ended up failing to meet with positive reviews from critics and audiences; “the magazine sheepishly shifted the blame to director Monte Hellman, accusing him of being an auteur” (357).  So often I find that people crave the attention of being credible for a applaudable piece of work so it’s surprising to think that sometimes that same credibility can shift the other way too.

I find this effect interesting because of the value we put into actors, directors, and writers as those who provide quality content for the mass consumers.  Of all the celebrities who have been able to master their professions, it’s all far too often to not realize all those who haven’t been able to reach their level and have even been labeled as notoriously “bad” at what they do for a living.  Why this is interesting to me is because despite the uneven proportion of those who fail compared to those who succeed, so many people everyday make it their aspiration to become the best director, or best actor, or best writer, etc., while the odds are not ever in their favor.  This makes me wonder if the human condition is naturally a risk seeking phenomena and if there is some quality about those who have made it that sets them apart from those who have not.  Despite Hellman’s misplaced blame, as we later read, there had to be someone who had done something at some point to have caused the poor reviews, and by isolating that quality, one would be able to refine the process and replicate it to have a more positive outcome, in theory.