# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Film Spectatorship Explained like it's the 1930's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is England - Quick Film Studies Revision Guide Eduqas A-Level Film Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11.0B - Memento Film Form & Narrative KO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paper 1 and 2 Question Bank Every Past Paper NEW

# data[].attributes.body
Is this better or worse?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Level Film Studies Student Blog: Spectatorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Starter Pack for Film Language Revision v.3 (dragged)

# data[].attributes.body
Links to scenes useful for explaining aesthetics of the film.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
START

Dominant ideology

The dominant or ruling ideology of society is called 'hegemony'.

These ideologies are held by those 'in charge', and they are usually, 'traditional', male POV, hetero-normative and white-centric.

Why do we believe certain things and behave the way we do?

How do the 'ruling classes' see the world? Or how the world should be?

Dominant ideology

One way to discuss ideology is to use the terms 'left' and 'right' wing (also known as liberal and conservative).

What are some 'left' wing political beliefs about the social issues here? What are some right wing beliefs?

The American Dream

Gender roles

After the video, describe the CONSERVATIVE hegemonic, dominant ideologies of western/American society of the following areas...

The American Dream

Gender roles

Now consider a more liberal ideology of these areas. What would Ben's ideology be about these areas of society?

Context of ideology

Ideologies are context dependent; a country's dominant ideology can shift - is this true of your film?

captain fantastic was made at a time of ideological change?

THis created huge division in left and right wing ideologies

Task 3 - Does your film uphold these DOMINANT ideological beliefs?

Choose the most relevant answer and write a 200 word statement providing examples from the film to reinforce your opinion

Task 4 - Before moving on to the next task, spend five minutes reading this review of captain fantastic's ideology.

Click on the link button.

START

For the previous task you probably wanted to say this...

Task 5: With a partner, answer the questions on the screen in preparation for feeding back.

You have 10 minutes

Task 6 - how are these ideologies visualised?

In your pair, for each ideological area on slide 3 (click on the 'go back' arrow below) pick a scene and select a screen grab that visualises the dominant ideology and then one for a more liberal point of view.

Annotate why you think it represents dominant ideology or a challange to this hegemony.

Research into the directors intentions.

View the video opposite as a starter, but search for more info that will help you to answer the questions on the next page.

with your partner, answer these bulletpoint questions as a spider diagram.

once complete, take a picture and upload it to your website.

Your answers on previous slide probably identify the preferred response.

Write down what a negotiated and oppositional one may be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
START Dominant ideology The dominant or ruling ideology of society is called 'hegemony'. These ideologies are held by those 'in charge', and they are usually, 'traditional', male POV, hetero-normative and white-centric. Why do we believe certain things and behave the way we do? How do the 'ruling classes' see the world?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Starter Pack for Film Language Revision v.3 (dragged)

# data[].attributes.body
If you're discussing sound, ensure you use these terms to describe what we're hearing.

# data[].attributes.headline
This video accompanies the handout above. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This video accompanies the handout above. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Narrative Theory (The Ultimate Guide!) - Mr B's Media Marvels

# data[].attributes.body
We can apply this to Captain Fantastic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early filmmakers showed the world that a movie director could be an artist. But not every movie director. Because part of auteur theory is knowing how to define auteur directors. Before auteur theory, Directors were important, but the other factors were still more significant. Stars. Studios. Producers.

People referred to a 'Clark Gable movie' for example, because in the 1930's stars ruled the day. Auteur theory came in the early 1950's, and it changed all that. It shifted some power away from actors, producers, and studio moguls. It shifted power towards directors. Towards specific types of directors. And it ultimately led to a kind of director-crisis. We'll get to that later...First, let's define auteur and auteur theory.

auteur definition

What is Auteur Theory?

Auteur Theory is the idea that the director is the author and primary creative force behind a movie.

At first, it seems strange to call the director of the film the "author."

After all, Didn't someone else write it? Why isn't the writer considered the film's author? Well... we all know how Hollywood treats its writers...

Another reason is that scripts often change. So writers come and go.

Casablanca, considered one of the greatest movies of all time, has five credited writers. At least one more uncredited.

Film credits can be their own minefield to navigate, so if you want to know more on that check out this post on understanding film credits.

Back to "authorship"...

As much as everyone depends on the quality of a script the end product of a movie is a result of the execution.

And the execution?

That often comes down to the director. The director will be the one helping each department execute the script.

So if you ask who made a movie, the answer will invariably be:

The Director.

Auteur Directors

Not just any director...

Auteur theory states that the director is more than a conduit for the script. More than a conduit for the project.

The auteur director shapes every part of the movie. Their fingerprints are visible on every aspect.

Many directors, in fact, most, are NOT auteurs. Not according to Auteur Theory, anyway. There is a particular set of rules for defining a director as an auteur.

The auteur of a film is the film's true artist. The visionary behind it. The prime mover. But you can't have that credit just by being the movie's director.

Before we get into the rules, let's back up a moment. Who created all this thing in the first place?

origins of auteur cinema

Where does it come from?

Auteur theory comes from a French publication in 1954 of Cahiers du Cinema.

Cahiers definition is "book", or "notebook". The title loosely translates as "notes on cinema." The publication had been around since 1951. Then in 1954 Francois Truffaut, yes the soon to be legendary French director, wrote a scathing piece on the state of French movies at the time.

He held up as a far superior example, certain American films, and their directors.

In particular, he championed Alfred Hitchcock and Howard Hawks. It's no accident that a future filmmaker was the one to get the auteur theory ball rolling. Peter Bogdanovich would later spend years interviewing the great directors, celebrating auteur theory. He went on to make his movies.

American critic Andrew Sarris was the one who referred to Truffaut's manifesto as "Auteur Theory."

Film critic Andrew Sarris helped create the auteur definition

Truffaut famously claimed "there are no good or bad films. Only good or bad directors." Why?

The theory is that a director isn't necessarily a film artist. But an auteur is.

AUTEUR DEFINITION

What is an Auteur?

While the auteur definition in french is literally "author", in the dictionary it now reads:
"An auteur is a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp."
Creating meaning that only he can, using the tools of filmmaking, through the lens of his mind and personality.

A bad movie from an auteur was at least the work of an artist. The excellent film from an average director was not.

Good news Tommy Wiseau!

So why Hitchcock and Hawks? There were plenty other prominent name directors at the time.

Bigger, in fact. Even more celebrated.

The quick answer:

Hitchcock and Hawks seemed to have signature elements to all their movies.

In many ways Howard Hawks was the prototypical auteur.

Which brings us to this question:

auteur filmmaker requirements

What are the rules of Auteur Theory?

When Andrew Sarris took the auteur theory to the next level, he laid out three basic rules:

1. Basic Competency

"A great director has to at least be a good director." Which is to say that the director's movies must be technically competent.

You can't have an auteur who's movies fail to clear some of the fundamental hurdles.

Sorry, Tommy Wiseau...

2. Signature Style

"Over a group of films a director must exhibit certain recurrent characteristics of style which serve as his signature."

This one is pretty self-explanatory. If a director isn't doing this, then he's not an auteur.

You need to know it's Howard Hawks just by looking at it. Hawks is a great example because he made movies across genre. Hell, he practically defined every genre.

The gangster genre with the original Scarface.

Romantic comedy with Bringing Up Baby.

Westerns with Red River.

Adventure with To Have and Have Not and Only Angels Have Wings...

Hawks' oeuvre is one genre-defining classic after another. The common thread to each? The Hawks signature elements.

It's also interesting to note that Howard Hawks was not celebrated by his peers, this piece goes a little deeper on how auteur theory changed the perception of Hawks and why.

3. Interior Meaning

"Interior meaning is extrapolated from the tension between a directors personality and his material."

Hmm. Huh?

It seems what Sarris meant here was that the director's innermost soul must come through in the movie.

One of the only ways to know that is what the director went through to get the movie made. Did he have to fight hard against a studio for certain things? Or against the script? Are there specific moments that go beyond a familiar stylistic flourish? Moments that feel more like a little piece of that filmmaker up on the screen?

An example of this might be a moment distinct to the director, but that doesn't belong in the movie. An odd thing to celebrate... but more on that later...

Interior meaning is a tricky thing to get at with a director. How do we know what strange elements they came up with... or where odd little accidents?

That's the LAST rule, or guideline, to defining auteur directors.

That vagueness is what leaves open the great debate that can rage on and on...

best auteur directors

Who are Greatest auteur directors?

Think of it as a debate over who is the greatest one-on-one basketball player. Some people will say it's Michael Jordan. Some younger people might say Lebron James.

But the problem with those types of debates is that they cross an uncrossable distance of time and space. We can never see prime athletes matched up against one another across eras.

But...

We can judge great movies, from great directors at the height of their powers, against one another.

Auteur directors? Kubrick, Fellini, Welles, Ford, and Hitchcock

How does Spielberg stack up against Hawks? Scorsese vs. Ford?

Let the debates rage on!

Who's the better auteur Hitchcock or Tarantino?

Well if you ask me, a writer-director doesn't really fit within the auteur definition.

Why? Isn't a writer-director a much more obvious choice for an auteur?

Maybe.

But the strictest auteur definition applies to directors only, as they are the ones imbuing a written source with a unique artistic interpretation. In other words, an auteur director uses only their directing skill to create meaning.

Auteur or noteur?

Who are the best auteur directors?

So Quentin Tarantino really isn't an "auteur" in a classic sense . But Steven Spielberg could be. This goes against the assumption that an auteur is "artsy" versus a more commercial director like Spielberg who churns out audience-friendly mainstream fare.

To be clear: Wh y is Spielberg more an auteur?

Because whether he starts with a script about dinosaurs or the Holocaust, his stamp will be all over it.

Tarantino conceives of all his films on the page first. So, of course, his stamp is all over it.

This probably won't make Tarantino very happy. But it's the truth if you consider the classical source of the term.

Although, if you ask most people of Tarantino has a signature directing style, the answer would be a resounding "YES." But if you dig deeper, you could make the case that Tarantino's signature style is really found in the writing - and he upholds this writer's vision when directing.

It's okay Quentin! We still love you even if you're not a film auteur!

It's also part of the auteur backlash. Because this distinction is a bit silly.

Billy Wilder is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. He made movies in every genre, same as Hawks. His films have his signature qualities.

Wilder co-wrote most of them, if not all of them. In fact, he started out as a writer. This is part of why he was such a great filmmaker. You could make the case that he was a more "complete" storyteller than Hawks.

What about Paul Thomas Anderson? Or Wes Anderson?

How can Hawks and Spielberg be on a auteurism scale that excludes Wilder and Tarantino?

Hmm. This type of endless coffee shop debate is what makes auteur theory so interesting and timeless.

AUTEUR THEORY HATERS

Why do some people hate auteurs?

Many people are not fond of the reductionist qualities of the auteur definition, or any similar theories.

Critic Pauline Kael led the charge against auteur theory. She and Sarris went back and forth over the subject.

Not before she poked some large holes in it.

John Huston, for example, was an excellent director of Hollywood's golden age who "gets no love" from the auteur theories and theorists.

Instead, he's passed off as having made actors films. Kael dismisses this as being arbitrary.

Other problems with the theory are that it seems to champion lesser films. A bad movie by a great director is notable because it has some of his signature elements.

Another quality that has come under fire is the idea of the interior meaning.

If a director forces his 'style' upon a movie where it might not belong, is he a "good" director?

The auteur theory says yes.

DEFINING AUTEUR THEORY

Auteur theory endgame

The auteur theory was part and parcel of the first generation of cinephiles.

The study of film and film directors became more and more popular. Film schools sprung up.

This is John Ford. Does he look like he cares about auteur theory examples?

Early directors like Hawks and John Ford, saw what they did as something of a trade. Not an art form.

When Peter Bogdanovich followed them around with a notepad, they thought he was crazy.

The generation of movie fans that became directors started churning out the movies of the 1970's that would become classics.

Scorsese. Coppola. Friedkin. Altman.

Auteur theory breaking point

Auteur theory consequences?

Things reached a breaking point. Studios started handing these auteurs huge budgets, and some of the results were catastrophic.

After The Deer Hunter director Michael Cimino got a blank check from United Artists.

The auteur theory was starting to pay big.

But Cimino's attention to detail left the production in ruin. It bankrupted the studio. United Artists was sold to MGM.

Cimino's career never recovered.

Meanwhile, something else was happening in film. Other members of that generation made the first true blockbusters... Jaws in 1975 and Star Wars in 1977 showed Hollywood a better way to make money.

Auteur theory changed the way people think of directors and movies.

It went to some extremes at times, but the fundamental notion that a filmmaker is an artist comes directly from auteur theory. The idea that studying a director and his or her work can make you better also came out of it.

But there is a limit to what the Director's power should be. Without checks and balances in place, things can veer into disaster.

A production is a group effort. The finished product is the result of coordinating many artists and technicians. Boiling it down to one person and placing their influence above everyone else makes for bad movies.

The original auteurs themselves would agree.

Up Next

How to easily copyright a script

Auteur theory also applies to writers (or at least it should). And that means protecting your original written works. Next up, we'll discuss the easiest and most ironclad way to how to copyright your scripts.

Do you want claim credit over your own work? Then make sure to copyright your script ASAP. We'll show you how.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate Guide to the Best Auteur Directors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A definition of auteur theory, what it really means, where it comes from, who are the best auteur directors, and why it all matters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Binary Opposition? Claude Lévi-Strauss Media Studies Structural Theory explained!

# data[].attributes.body
Great for considering the Auteur Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Casablanca - Michael Curtiz: The Greatest Director You Never Heard Of

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The poster for 'Do The Right Thing'

In our new weekly series, "Under the influence", we ask experts to share what they believe are the most influential works of art or artists in their field. Here, University of the Witwatersrand film studies lecturer and filmmaker Dylan Valley explains why Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" is one of the director's most influential films.
For a black film and media student at the University of Cape Town, Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" (1989) was a revelation. I watched it on a DVD one afternoon with my friend Frank in one of the damp tutorial rooms in the Arts Block on Upper Campus, only a few steps away from where Cecil John Rhodes' statue stood.

Our film history curriculum at that point had been mostly European and American cinema. While still American, this was something completely different. It had been nearly 20 years since the film's inception and it took place on a completely different continent, and yet it was so relatable.

More than just that, it was a visceral film experience, a wake-up call, but also an affirmation. Watching it in 2016 it's eerie (and tragic) how relevant its central theme of racial tension and structural violence still is, both in America and South Africa.

"Do The Right Thing" takes place over the course of the hottest day on a block in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. Spike Lee plays Mookie, a 25-year-old who seems to be meandering through life, but is on a mission to get paid. He works at the local Italian pizzeria, Sal's, where most of the neighbourhood eats and hangs out.

The simmering heat of the day (visualised by deep reds and yellows on screen) reflects the tensions between the Italian pizzeria owner, Sal (Danny Aiello) and Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito), the self-appointed neighbourhood spokesperson. Buggin' Out questions the lack of representation of black people on the walls of the pizzeria, which services a mostly black clientele: "Sal, how come you ain't got no brothers on the wall?"

Sal's hostile response to Buggin' Out's provocation leads to a protest that ends in police brutality and the loss of black life, and marks the demise of the pizzeria.

Why is/was it influential?

Despite its explosive dénouement, one of the main strengths of the film is the complexity of its characters and the representations of blackness on screen. Lee moved beyond stereotypes of African Americans in cinema and created characters reflected in the everyday. In "Do The Right Thing", black people are not presented in the traditional binary of subservient and smiling, or violent and dangerous, but rather are able to exist as more rounded expressions of themselves.

While Buggin' Out is concerned with black nationalist politics and representation, he also bugs out when a white gentrifier on the block accidentally scuffs his brand new US$100 Jordan sneakers. Even though this infliction is frivolous, it leads to a cathartic (prophetic?) outburst: "Man motherfuck gentrification!"

No one in "Do The Right Thing" is necessarily "heroic". Even Radio Raheem, the likeable, stylish giant who blasts the film's opening theme and leitmotif, hip-hop group Public Enemy's Fight The Power, from a large boombox, imposes his music on others. He is mostly an irritant in the neighbourhood. Radio Raheem is unnecessarily confrontational with the Korean shopkeepers who have recently moved onto the block. It's reflected in the scene where he goes to them to buy batteries, "I said 20 'D' batteries, motherfucker! Learn how to speak English first, alright?"

Although in the same scene, he smiles and tells shopkeeper Sonny (Steve Park), "You're alright, man", diffusing any threat of real conflict.

Mookie isn't necessarily noble or likeable, however his actions towards the end of the film disrupt this reading of him and show significant character development. Ironically, there is not that much black and white in this film; the characters live in a world of greys.

While the film has no typical heroes, it is more clear about its villains, particularly the police. Also there is pizzeria owner Sal's son Pino (John Turturro) who is openly racist and tells Sal, "I'm sick of niggers." Sal is more complicated, as he sees himself as a good guy who takes pride in feeding the neighbourhood.

Sal later tells Mookie he sees him as "son". Despite this, during the film's climax and in the verbal screaming match between him and Buggin' Out, he flips and uses racial epithets, telling Radio Raheem to turn off that "jungle music" and hurls profanities like "nigger mutherfucker".

In his book, " BFI Modern Classics: Do The Right Thing ", Ed Guerrero points out that it is Sal who destroys Raheem's boombox with a bat: "A line is crossed here, from words to physical action." When that violence escalates and turns fatal, the victim doesn't need to be an angel for us to have tears in our eyes. He was real, we knew him.

"Do The Right Thing" was partly inspired by the 1986 Howard Beach incident in which a black man, Michael Griffiths, was killed while escaping an angry white mob with baseball bats after exiting the New Park pizzeria. The mob had earlier tried to chase him and his friends out of their neighbourhood for being black. Unsurprisingly, this was only one of the stories that Lee drew from to write "Do The Right Thing". This story is sadly familiar nearly 30 years later.

Why is it still relevant today?

In 2016, amidst the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and a never-ending list of unarmed African Americans being killed by police, the film is even more relevant. In 2015, young black men were nine times more likely to be killed at the hands of police than other Americans, and 2016 looks to be on par. In a South Africa where the police killed 34 miners in Marikana for striking for a better life, and where the politics of representation and ownership are still unresolved, the tragic trajectory of "Do The Right Thing" will send chills down your spine.

When the film was released, journalists feared it would spark race riots and hate crimes. There were even warnings issued to white people to avoid seeing the film. Instead, it caused a nation to reflect, and affirmed the black experience around the world. Despite critical and fan acclaim, the film was mostly snubbed by the Academy Awards in 1990, receiving two nominations for Best Writing and Best Supporting Actor (Danny Aiello).

Tellingly, Best Picture went to "Driving Miss Daisy", which Ed Guerrero calls

the paternalist problem picture with its long-suffering black servant ... The contrasts between Morgan Freeman's rendering of an elderly, humble and enduring Negro servant in "Driving Miss Daisy" and Spike Lee's portrayal of the feckless, urban youth Mookie could not have been greater in the 1989 Oscar year.

Last year Lee finally won his Oscar at the Academy's annual Governor's Awards, an honorary nod for his contribution to cinema.

Filmically, there is so much more to be said of "Do The Right Thing": its beautiful cinematography, it's on-point casting (Rosie Perez's debut as Tina, and Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee as an elderly couple) and its belligerent dialogue ("I'm just a struggling black man trying to keep his dick hard in a cruel and harsh world!").

The film often breaks the " fourth wall " - the imaginary "wall" that exists between actors and the audience - making us aware of its construction, like in Raheem's dreamlike love/hate soliloquy and the racial hatred montage.

Watching it all these years later, perhaps what's most impressive is how fresh the film still feels, even down to the classic hip-hop and "Afro-centric" clothes and haircuts (there are many Buggin' Outs walking the streets of my home city of Johannesburg as we speak).

"Do The Right Thing" was a challenge to Hollywood's cultural hegemony. Lee fought to get the story told on his terms, exchanging larger financial support for his artistic vision.

Most importantly, the film doesn't offer neat answers, but rather important questions, which haven't lost any of their urgency today. As a filmmaker, one can only hope to create work with such long-lasting affect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Under the influence of ... Spike Lee's film 'Do The Right Thing'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In our new weekly series, "Under the influence", we ask experts to share what they believe are the most influential works of art or artists in their field.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking Down the Classical Hollywood Style

# data[].attributes.headline
The Cinematographer of DtRT explains how he shot the film.

# data[].attributes.subject
The Cinematographer of DtRT explains how he shot the film.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behind the Scene: Cinematographer Ernest Dickerson on making DO THE RIGHT THING

# data[].attributes.body
This is useful to consider how the film (new Hollywood) was made and is an interesting comparison to Casablanca (old Hollywood).

# data[].attributes.body
Use the Mark Scheme in the presentation above place this in a band and mark this answer out of 10.

# data[].attributes.body
Example questions and Mark Scheme for sample answers to Q2.1.

# data[].attributes.headline
Films are always shaped by their production context...

# data[].attributes.subject
Films are always shaped by their production context...

# data[].attributes.body
Use the Mark Scheme in the presentation above place this in a band and mark this answer out of 40.

# data[].attributes.body
Example questions and Mark Scheme for sample answers to Q1.2 and Q1.3.

# data[].attributes.body
Use the Mark Scheme in the presentation above and mark this answer out of 20.

# data[].attributes.headline
Compare how sound (diegetic and non-diegetic) create meaning in a key scene from each of the films you have studied.

# data[].attributes.subject
Compare how sound (diegetic and non-diegetic) create meaning in a key scene from each of the films you have studied.

# data[].attributes.body
Use the Mark Scheme in the presentation above and mark this answer out of 20.

# data[].attributes.body
Example questions and Mark Scheme for sample answers to Q1 below.

# data[].attributes.body
This video may answer some questions you have about the film and your response to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Under the Skin' | Anatomy of a Scene w/ Director Jonathan Glazer | The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
The print is small on this doc so download it and ZOOM in :-)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Remember, these questions relate to Casablanca and Do the Right Thing and are comparison style questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Remember, these questions relate to Casablanca and Do the Right Thing and are comparison style questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Remember, these questions relate to This is England and Under the Skin