Critical Approaches to Film

Genre/ Auteur Essay

Option 1:

What is genre theory?

What is auteur theory?

What will your essay be about/ cover?

Option 2:

What are the differences between auteur and genre theory? (Briefly)

Which have you decided will be more relevant to the film in question?

What will your essay cover?

Option 3:

Explain they are different approaches to film criticism. That they have

advantages and disadvantages in being used for critical analysis. Debate

from critics and criticism?

Will you be using ‘I’

or not? Choose and

then stick with that.

Brief background to the auteur

theory / genre theory. Examples of

where it came from.

What are the strengths and

weaknesses of the theory? e.g. not

taking into consideration others

involved in the film. Hitchcock - his

films are based on novels. By

focusing on the mise-en-scene, the

writing is ignored.

Does the film use elements of the

genre to construct the director’s

own vision.

How much creative control did

the director have?

Who else has thoughts on the

genre theory?

Who else has thoughts on the

auteur theory?

Are these thoughts positive or

negative towards the theories?

Jim Kitses believes the director rather than the form has

occupied critical attention (2000).

If the director receives more attention then the auteur theory is

favoured.

Explain what the auteur theory is used for: it’s about personal

authorship in cinema. Used to study a director’s works by tracing

characteristic themes, structures, formal qualities.

What genre is your film? What recognisable generic

conventions are in your film? (Think about storylines

etc…)

Pinpoint specific ones and draw on scenes/ parts of the

film.

Can the idea of an auteur director be applied to your

director?

Are there personal marks at play?

Which ones can you list? Draw on specific scenes and

parts of the film to highlight your points.

Does your director move

away from typical

conventions of the genre?

Which examples can you

give?

Think about the characters, are

these traditional representations of

the genre?

Are the characters also typical of

the director? e.g. Hawksian male

and female?

What are the themes of the film?

Typical of the genre?

Typical of the director? If it is the

latter then is auteur theory more

useful?

Are there any critics/ writers that

can back this up too?

e.g. Andrew Sarris describes Ford

as a director who would ‘often

soar beyond genre conventions’

(Sarris. 1976. 41)

If your director moves away

from typical conventions,

then is genre theory still

worth applying?

Surely auteur theory would be

more useful because the

director is putting their own

spin on the conventions?

Where can you see your

director’s style in their

other films as well as the

one under discussion?

E.G. Ford working with the

same cast.

Is there a negative aspect

to being an auteur? Using

the same faces? Same

styles? What are the

positive aspects of it? Is

the film limited by the

auteur director?

Are the two

theories at

opposition with

each other in the

film?

Do both theories

have uses? Are

they both

relevant?

How relevant is the auteur theory?

Can the director’s personal marks

of authorship be seen? (Give a few

brief examples that you’ve already

discussed).

What about genre?

Which is more useful?

Which will be more relevant when

studying the film?