What has Andrew Sarris done with the Autuer Theory

Andrew Sarris’ “Notes on the Autuer Theory in 1962” represents his attempt to show this theory from an English language viewpoint. He starts by saying that the Autuer Theory, as presented by Bazin and Truffaut, needs to be restated to take away their vagaries; “I believe there is a misunderstanding here about what the autuer theory actually claims, particularly since the theory itself is so vague at the present time.” (Sarris, 561) He also points out that Truffaut has gone to great lengths to elaborate that his theory was only meant for a given time and a given place. However Sarris seeks to update it and bring it into his view of contemporary cinema. Sarris is to freewheeling with other critics views, and too rigid with his own at times, to make this theory mold to his conception of what he thinks it should be.

At the beginning of the article Sarris seems unsure of himself and his thoughts. He states that there is no definition of the Autuer Theory in the English language as far as he knows. However, this is the point of his essay and why he thinks it is important is because he is attempting to stake his claim to the American perception of the Autuer Theory. As stated in the introduction, Truffaut’s claim that the Auteur theory was meant for a given time and a given place is not given much credence. He mentions this only in passing and says how he respects Truffaut’s notion, but Sarris then goes on to transport this idea from one time and place to another. While he was not as far removed from Truffaut’s formulation as we are, he is trying to bring it into an American context and attempting to change its meaning to justify his perception. Sarris says that the Autuer theory has changed the way that he views cinema, but he says that someone who was responsible for its creation, Bazin, did not really understand what it meant: “That three otherwise divergent critics like Bazin, Roud, and Cameron make essentially the same point about the autuer theory…I believe there is a misunderstanding about what the autuer theory actually claims,…” (561). This statement does not seem to pay the proper respect to the people that added to his appreciation of the Auteur Theory and suggests that he believes he can be the theory’s savior and properly explain it for once.

Another problem with Sarris’ argument of the Autuer theory is the rigidity with which he approaches this subject. Even though he states at the beginning that the Autuer Theory allows for exceptions from the director being the only possible Autuer in a film, he spends the rest of his time arguing which director’s can be considered Autuers. Sarris mentions Marlon Brando as a candidate in passing, and also points out how crew members on the technical side of filmmaking can be responsible for making a great film. But he never argues for the position of the actor in the Autuer Theory or that of a cinematographer, producer, or editor.

At one point Sarris states that, “An expert production crew could probably cover up for a chimpanzee in the director’s chair.” (563) This statement seems to be an oversight on Sarris’ part. The bulk of the article is arguing the championing of the director as the supreme creative force behind the making of the film. Sarris falls into his own trap at this point. He says that a pattern will be established after a given number of films about the status of that director as an Autuer. However, a bad director working with great actors and a skilled production crew could continue to make good films as long as he retained that crew. While it does appear likely that one would be able to differentiate a good director from a bad director after some time, it is not guaranteed. Therefore Sarris’ upcoming list of his twenty Autuers could be flawed.

In his list of directors that he considers to be Autuers, Sarris is ignoring part of his article. First of all there is no mention of any actors even being considered for this list, or any other crew member besides the director for that matter. Even though he says that there is room for exceptions to the director being the Autuer, he refuses to make these exceptions in his list. Therefore the possibility of a bad director populating his list exists. Even though Sarris steers the cautious course by only including directors that have a more established reputation, this reputation may not have come from their directing skills. Drawing upon the statement cited earlier, one of these directors could very well be a “chimpanzee.” He does not consider the fact, or at least does not present evidence to the contrary, that one of these directors could have had their faults covered up by an expert crew and skilled actors on numerous occasions.

Throughout his article, Sarris digs holes but never seems to fill them. The notion that a list can be formed of great directors is not completely faulty, but it deserves more discussion than he allows for. Sarris mentions that there could be more discussion on the topic by revealing that he has a supplementary list of two hundred other potential Autuers. But this topic is never engaged as he floats off to other ones. The notion of the Autuer theory is fine, but the way that Sarris argues it is very loose and he never really engages the reader into his meaning. Though he makes some good points about the nature of the Autuer Theory, he never truly explores it to the extent that one would expect. And while Sarris takes fault in other critics being very vague in their definitions of the Autuer Theory, he further devolves into this trap by staying very vague himself. “Notes on the Autuer Theory in 1962” seeks to enlighten the English speaking world as to what the Autuer Theory could be. But due to Sarris’ free floating ideas based on other critics thoughts, along with the rigidity of his own; the article never becomes convincing as to why the English speaking world should care.