Are Directors the Sole Author of a Film?

Cineastes often embrace auteur theory, but is it accurate?

Christopher Nolan: The sole author? Credit: HellaCinema at Wikipedia Commons

In view of recent conversations around why a film can be nominated for Best Picture without also nominating the director, I’ve had a lot of people asking my position on so-called auteur theory. For those unfamiliar with it, in massively reductionist terms, auteur theory claims because the director is in creative control of a film, they are, in effect, the sole author of that film.

This idea originated in the 1940s with US film critic Andrew Sarris, building on ideas from French film theorists André Bazin and Alexandre Astruc. Auteur theory generated much excited discussion in the pages of Cahiers du Cinéma in the 1950s, including contributions from Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut, who went on to spearhead the French New Wave with classic films like A Bout De Souffle (1960) and Jules et Jim (1962).

Frankly, I’ve always considered auteur theory absurd. It’s like saying record producer George Martin is the sole author of The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album. Having said that, it is clear some directors leave their unique stamp or signature on films in far greater ways than others. What is the difference between directors that do and directors that don’t? Should a director that doesn’t be considered a lesser beast? And how does that inform why some films are nominated for Best Picture rather than Best Director in awards ceremonies?