Establishing a criteria for what defines a good film is perhaps simplified by deciding what makes a great director. Though it has been said that great directors make great films, what qualifies one as a great director is a matter of dispute. Some may look to the glut of awards a director garners but that would exclude some of the highly regarded directors such as Hitchcock or Kubrick, neither of whom ever won the coveted Best Director Oscar. Some look at box office receipts, those who make the most money, yet that seems a spurious criterion as many talented and effective directors have never been big box office draws, while films whose directors names are nary recognizable pack them in. There have been many theorists who have posited criteria for judging a director’s quality but few have been so well known and readily embraced as the Auteur Theory. In Sarris’ “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962” he defines a fairly simple, though somewhat vague set of qualifications of the Auteur Theory, assuming that an auteur is indeed a ‘good’ director. He indicates that to be an auteur a director must first have technical capacity, the ability to manage the mechanics of film-making in order to make a movie that works. This excludes a number of directors whose films are largely incoherent messes (e.g. Ed Wood). Next, he declares that they must have a signature that comes through. This is the sense of style recognized by repeated motifs (visual and textual) that appear in the director’s body of work. This eliminates most directors as so many are workhorses simply making what the producers wants them to. The final and most elusive qualifier is the “élan of the soul”. This is something that is difficult to explain as it is something that is purely cinematic and therefore virtually impossible to describe in words. I would proffer that it is what Michael Shurtleff describes in his actor’s textbook “Audition” as the X factor or mystery. It is that quality that speaks to the soul that connects people to their humanity. This is not to be equated with emotional manipulation or maudlin sentimentalism, it is honest and connects with that which is true of all humanity. Even so, as Sarris describes, it is difficult to define in words.
Both Sarris and Peter Wollen identify John Ford as an auteur, though not necessarily with the same qualifiers. With an enormous body of work in various genres he provides plenty of media texts to analyze for the purpose of defining how well he fulfills the criteria established by Sarris. In looking primarily at his critically lauded work “How Green was my Valley” and comparing it to “The Searchers” we can determine that he does indeed fulfill the criteria and place himself within the pantheon of great directors known as auteurs.
The first criteria is the most facile to fulfill. John Ford’s film represents a clear understanding of the techniques of film and he utilizes them adroitly. Referring back to the IMR and comparing the film with that system of film we see that he certainly has the capacity to tell a clear, understandable story through this visual medium. There is a unity to the elements that work together to portray the plot, character, theme etc. Aside from the fact that he continually had work and his work was very well received by audiences, critics, and producers alike indicates that he was effective. It is not likely that there will be much argument on this point. John Ford was a master of technique.
The signature on the film requires more clear discussion. We must look at specific examples of stylistic choices that are repeated to support his fulfillment of this requirement for auteurship. In his film “The Searchers” he utilizes deep focus to great effect in both the opening and closing shots of the film. We see Ethan from inside a house through the door, the door being placed in the center of the shot. The repetition of that shot as a bookend to the film is a clear stylistic choice within the film. That deep focus repeated in “How Green was my Valley” indicates a motif that reaches beyond the bounds of a single film. An example of this use occurs after the marriage of the oldest daughter to the son of Mr. Evans, owner of the coal mine. This marriage is against her own will and that of the Mr. Griffith (the preacher) who are in love. As we see the marriage party in the foreground the focus instead is on the silhouette of Mr. Griffith up on the hill near the church. This indicates that Mr. Griffith is being left on the outside. Similar to Ethan in the bookends of “The Searchers”, he is a shadow in deep focus. This commonality of visual imagery in both films to express the repeated theme of being left on the outside is a manifestation of the author’s signature. This is something that John Ford does in his films to talk about a common theme. By doing so Ford has fulfilled the requirement of the auteur’s signature.
The final criterion is the élan of the soul. While Ford has the technical prowess and the stylistic utterances, it is his ability to give us those moments of soul-piercing humanity that firmly establish him within that pantheon of auteurship. The moment that best represents this concept within “How Green was my Valley” is near the end. The whistle sounds telling of an accident in the mine. The families of the miners rush to the mine to ascertain the safety of their beloved. The elevator rises with the miners but the father is not seen, in fact we see several tiers of the elevator pass with miners and the last is empty. It is clear that the father is still trapped in the mine. There is a shot of the mother’s face. The camera holds on her while there is much movement in the background. She leans softly on a beam for support. The camera holds. That moment is able to capture the weight of grief, uncertainty, anger, fear, love, and life that falls upon that woman. There is no affectation. No slowing of the movement, no swelling score. Just a pure, honest moment of the tragedy of all life. While much of the credit goes to the actress, it bespeaks also of the ability Ford to make that moment happen as it did. The coaching of the actress, the framing of the shot, the length of the shot before cutting, the choice of diagetic sound, the lighting, the movement; all of these things come from Ford bringing out that élan of the soul. The same is seen in “The Searchers” when we seen Ethan’s face after scalping Scar. A similar use of all his skill to bring us into touch with that which is greater than ourselves. These two together cement Ford’s status as an auteur as one who fulfills all the requirement as established by Sarris.
It is interesting that we would read about Auteur theory and death of the author in the same week. Auteur theory smacks of elitism and exclusionary politics. Barthes and Foucault tore down that elitism with their critique of the author and the role that it plays in oppressing the reader, that it is representative of the oppressive structures that encumber societal life. But such is the nature of the beast. As soon as one starts to develop a criteria for what is “good” in art, one is creating an oppressive structure and sliding over to elitism. One could argue that this elitism works to Ford’s advantage. His legacy continues because he belongs to an elite class and regardless of whether or not this structure is oppressive, it is remarkable effective in connecting audiences with the material. John Ford was really good at that and within the studio system, perhaps that was the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment