400 Screens, 400 Blows - Mavericks, Auteurs & Geniuses
Filed under: Columns, 400 Screens, 400 Blows

In describing today's best directors, three terms are generally used (and overused): Maverick, Genius and Auteur. A "maverick" is now used to describe virtually anyone who makes a movie without using Hollywood money. An "auteur" is used to describe anyone who writes as well as directs. And "genius" is used to describe anyone who makes a halfway decent film. I'm taking these words back. In reality, a "maverick" should be a button-pusher. It's a filmmaker who is so radical and daring that even high-minded, forward-thinking critics sneer at their work, people like Vincent Gallo or Catherine Breillat. These people are so dangerous that they have trouble making and distributing films. Harmony Korine, director of Mister Lonely (5 screens) is very much a maverick. Korine has pushed many buttons and many envelopes over the years and though I love his work, he's someone I wouldn't want to invite to my house. (He scares me.)
Werner Herzog, director of Encounters at the End of the World (1 screen), is also a maverick (and, incidentally, a buddy of Korine's). His physically dangerous films have probably had insurance companies slamming the door in his face, and his co-workers have included people who might not be fit for polite society. (At the very least, most of them would turn heads.) Some of his actors have reportedly threatened to kill him. It cracks me up that, because Herzog's documentary Grizzly Man was such a hit, Herzog was allowed to make his new film for the Discovery Channel. I'd really love to have been in on that board meeting. Did they really know who they were dealing with? At the same time, Herzog is also an auteur: all of his films have the same roaming curiosity, fearlessly exploring man's tenuous connection to nature, from Aguirre navigating the Amazon looking for El Dorado, to Timothy Treadwell seeking to befriend the bears.
The "Auteur Theory," developed in France in the 1950s and brought to America in the 1960s, has always had its detractors, but mainly it argues that the director is the author of a picture; a true auteur has a signature style that is discernable from movie to movie, regardless of cast, crew or subject matter. Wong Kar-wai is definitely an auteur, and his latest box office failure My Blueberry Nights (27 screens) is exactly the kind of film auteur critics like to champion. Most people unfavorably compared it to Wong's earlier work, but every frame has Wong's dreamy, lonely rhythms filled with streaked colors and a kind of distant sound design. Just because it feels lighter, and it's in English, doesn't mean it's a bad film. Errol Morris, the director of Standard Operating Procedure (16 screens), is also a definite auteur. He's one of the only documentary filmmakers to employ his own personality and methods (interviewees speaking right into the camera, re-creation footage, dramatic music, etc.) rather than the usual PBS format.
Also in the auteur category we have Hou Hsiao-hsien, director of Flight of the Red Balloon (13 screens) and Jacques Rivette, director of The Duchess of Langeais (6 screens). Their artistically superior work has always had a consistent, patient tone. It gets a little trickier when we talk about genre filmmakers like Argento, director of Mother of Tears (6 screens). The very nature of his work seems to cry out "maverick," since he flaunts convention to work in the lower, more physical horror genre. But he's not exactly dangerous and not entirely an outsider. But Argento, whose style remains the same from movie to movie, is definitely, definitely an auteur, and Mother of Tears, as awful as it is, has been one of my favorite movies of the year so far. But what about our third category, the "genius"? Far fewer geniuses exist in movies than the other categories, so it makes sense that there aren't any on the list right now.
A genius should be someone educated and worldly, with deep knowledge of cinema, art, world culture, music and other forms. Their decisions and ideas should be so surprising that mere mortals could never have conceived of them. Among the potential geniuses in cinema, we have Chaplin, Keaton, Welles, Kubrick, Bresson, Bergman and Kiarostami. And of course, that brings us to Jean-Luc Godard, director of Contempt (2 screens). Godard and Orson Welles are probably the only two directors who qualify for all three categories; although Godard's major drawback is that he's not as easy to like as Welles. His later films are obtuse and frustrating, although no one can deny their brilliance, and no one can deny that they're perfectly Godardian. He practically invented a whole new cinematic language, although, like Griffith, his contributions now seem quaint and out of date. His early films, like the aforementioned Contempt, as well as Breathless, Band of Outsiders, Weekend, Pierrot le Fou, Alphaville, A Woman Is a Woman, Masculine-Feminine, etc. are still amazing and a great source of excitement and discovery for film buffs. I only hope I get to see another filmmaker like this in my lifetime.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-27-2008 @ 7:55PM
Jonathan Kuhn said...
This was a great read. I whole-heartedly agree that the terms "auteur" and "maverick" are thrown out WAY too much. Often the people they are used to describe don't fall under that category at all.
While I also feel "genius" is used too much, I wouldn't apply it in the same way as you. Technically a genius can be very skilled in only one area.
For instance, I'd call the writers of "Arrested Development" genius without hesitation.
But yes, I'm tired of everyone being call a genius.
http://www.slowclapchildren.blogspot.com
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 4:12PM
ryan said...
I believe that godard may be a genius as well as an auteur, and maverick, but i'd be "hard-pressed" to put anyone and i do mean anyone ahead of andrei tarkovsky. in my opinion he is the genius of film, and i hope that maybe some day i will have the pleasure of seeing his equal.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 4:24AM
harry lime said...
No geniuses? Pish-posh. I can think of at least 5 current directors who fall, without question, into that category.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 8:30AM
Kit-Sung said...
A question for Harry Lime: Which five directors working today are you thinking of?
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 9:15AM
Apathygrrl said...
I think Hitchcock should be amongst your list of geniuses.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 11:51AM
Evan said...
The point of your article is well taken -- these labels are used far too frequently and have begun to lose their meaning. (Anyone who thinks there are five geniuses in the movies today does not use the word in the same way we apply it to Shakespeare, Cervantes and Michelangelo.) However, you made a glaring omission in not considering Charles Chaplin for all three categories.
First of all, Vincent Gallo is a pussy-cat compared to Chaplin, who attacked Hitler in a mainstream Hollywood film when most of the country was still set on avoiding military intervention. He was later exiled for his unfashionable views during the black-listing era after producing the dark and censorious Monsieur Verdoux and the abstractly philosophical and blatantly autobiographical Limelight. During Hollywood's most severe period of studio control, he managed to consolidate all aspects of production under his own person.
As for being an auteur, Chaplin's films bear an undeniable stylistic stamp across 50 years of film making. He was labeled as such by notables like Andrew Sarris (coined the term "auteur" in America), Francois Truffaut and Andre Bazin, who originally invented the "politique des auteurs".
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 7:25PM
harry lime said...
Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Michelangelo were not filmmakers. They are geniuses in their fields.
We are talking about geniuses of filmmaking.
Some people can be geniuses in certain narrow capacities, but then can be completely crippled when it comes to interaction with other people, perhaps "socially retarded." Autistic people are another example. Someone can be "retarded" and a genius at the same time, I believe. Someone can have an encyclopedic knowledge of one area of study and be almost entirely ignorant in another. Again, "genius" is a relative term, and none of us, including Mr. Anderson, is an infallible authority who speaks only in objective statements.
Leonardo da Vinci was a Renaissance Man and was a genius in several fields. Does that make him a greater genius than Mozart, who was exceptionally brilliant at musical composition, and not known for being exceptional in other areas (that we know of)? I don't know. Perhaps.
There are levels of genius, but all the levels are included in that category.
Who knows if Shakespeare would have had the eye of Kubrick? Would Cervantes have been able to produce "Paths of Glory?"
One field's genius is another field's ignorant.
To Kit-Sung: At the risk of being second-guessed, I will not disclose this information until the conversation is furthered. Sorry. Not one of the 5, or a director I would be devastated to read "Him? Eh. Not so much" is Roman Polanski, who is probably #11 on my list of Favorite Directors. I think he is a genius. "Chinatown," "Death and the Maiden," and "The Pianist" are 3 films dear to my heart. I consider all three to be masterpieces.
Apologies for the length.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 7:29PM
harry lime said...
*Because of the risk
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 11:00PM
SFO said...
I consider than the problem of clasifying the directors as mavericks, auteurs or geniuses it's that it has nothing to do with the originality, audacity or contribution, as much as subcultural cluster credibility. Take Vincent Gallo in the case of the mavericks, he's not really talented at framing shots, his subjects may be interesting, but the way he "tells" the movie is at best clumsy (Trouble Every Day or Brown Bunny), his movies are never as interesting as the events surrounding them. His main appeal is the bohemian image and his cult. Herzog on the other hand is THE MAVERICK, as in the case of a director ready to go all the way for his movies.
There are directors right now that while not geniuses, I consider auteurs: Alex De La Iglesia, Sergio Almodovar, Park Chan-Wook, Michel Gondry, Terry Gilliam, Ishi Katsuhito, directors that have a certain "flavor" that manages to get into any of their movies.
But the genius status is not something you'll get while being alive. It's about how will your work stand the test of time.
Reply
7-01-2008 @ 11:36PM
Danny Willis said...
I think the problem with your definitions are that they include many unintended people.
For example, by your definition of auteur, John Woo and Jerry Bruckheimer qualify. They definitely have a signature style that is discernible from movie to movie, regardless of cast, crew or subject matter.
I'd contend that you're throwing around the terms here just as much as everyone else. It's all so subjective that everyone wants to label the things they like and respect as maverick or genius, the only difference is taste.
Reply
7-02-2008 @ 1:40AM
Johnny said...
First of all, to address Danny Willis' point about Woo and Bruckheimer, technically you can analyze and categorize both of them under the auteur theory. Auteur doesn't assume a value placement, it's merely an academic mode of classification, and both Woo and Bruckheimer have distinctive styles that are unmistakably theirs, even though Bruckheimer isn't the man directly behind the camera - just goes to show his power. Doesn't mean they make good movies, just means those movies are easily and identifiably grouped together under one person's name (as Mr. Anderson pointed out with "Mother of Tears"). By contrast, a person like Brett Ratner, while possessive of an extensive filmography, would not classify for the auteur theory for lack of a distinctive style. Sure, it's probably there if you really look for it, but I would guess you'd be hard pressed to find someone who, after one viewing, could either find consistent thematic substance or differentiate his style from, say, Paul W.S. Anderson.
As far as the question of genius, I agree with SFO; I think that's tricky to identify in the current time. Sure, it's fun to try, but consider that nobody read Lovecraft until after the man died, and now he's hailed as a titan of sci-fi/horror. Hell, even Welles couldn't catch a serious break during his lifetime. And while people like Spielberg or Lucas are extremely popular and undeniably successful not just commercially but artistically, neither has really pushed the boundaries of cinematic language either through formal or thematic elements (maybe Lucas with his special effects, but he really just put up the funding for that). Not to pick on Harry Lime, because you're awfully brave to put your tastes on the message board chopping block, but while "Chinatown" is in my top tier of favorite movies, I don't know if there's anything revelatory in it. I don't think just saying that someone is a genius in his/her one field or even quantifying the amount of fields ultimately solves the problem of how you define genius within those particular fields. I would hone Mr. Anderson's blanket definition by adding that a genius us someone who changes or at least expands the rules of their respective medium either through formal or thematic means; I'd also say there are ultimately only a few people who end up achieving this (Godard, Kubrick). The Coen Brothers are incredibly, unfathomable talented, unquestionably unique, and two of my all-time favorite filmmakers, but I don't know if that necessarily qualifies for genius. Or maybe it does. Like you said, who knows for sure? Perhaps time will tell. Sometimes you can't see how much the rules have changed until you're out of the transition period.
To be fair to Mr. Lime, let me put my own tastes up for desecration: I'd add Antonioni and Murnau to the genius/auteur list, though I don't think either necessarily qualifies for the maverick. I'd also say that my personal best guess for contemporary genius at least in America might just be Darren Aronofksy, since I consider all three of his movies to expand on purely cinematic techniques to more viscerally communicate his complicated themes ("Requiem for a Dream" is saying something much deeper than "drugs are bad" - hell, it's in the title). But I'm probably wrong, and will be totally shown up when, 90 years from now, Brett Ratner is taught alongside Ingmar Bergman.
Reply
7-02-2008 @ 1:32AM
Evan said...
Of course I didn't mean to suggest that Shakespeare, Cervantes and Michelangelo were genius filmmakers. Whether their skills would have translated at all to film in another time and place is as irrelevant to the discussion as asking whether Michelangelo could write a good novel or Shakespeare paint a good fresco. The root of such a discussion is naturally going to boil down to the way we use the word genius, and in a way, I feel that Mr. Anderson was a little to broad in his definition by bringing in so many outside factors like education and training into the mix. The way I use the term -- and as I believe many have over the course of history -- connotes a person who is capable of accomplishing things that are inconceivable to ordinary people. If you were alive during Mozart's time, you might have pointed to five exemplary individuals and called each of them a genius for his or her real or perceived merits. Nevertheless, today we speak of Mozart and leave his talented contemporaries to the experts.
Reply
7-02-2008 @ 5:43AM
harry lime said...
Evan's definition is too open-ended to really be helpful, though he's on the right track.
My definition of genius would be similar to his, only with a bit more elaboration, as there could be uniquely horrible ideas or spectacularly singular travesties.
As for SFO's definition, applying some sort of time limit or requiring there be a waiting period before labeling someone a genius seems ludicrously lockstep and needlessly formal.
But this squabbling over semantics is swiftly becoming tiresome, and, I fear, unproductive.
Johnny: the Coen Brothers were, in fact, one of the choices I was reluctant to mention. I own and cherish "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing," "Fargo," "The Big Lebowski," "The Man Who Wasn't There," "No Country," and "Barton Fink." I love them. But I'm not allowing my fondness to bias me in calling them geniuses. I love the films of Lynn Ramsay (all 2 of them) and the films of some other directors, but I wouldn't call them "geniuses."
As for Aronofsky, I love "Pi." I thought "Requiem for a Dream" was deeply effective the first time I watched it, but I find it to be overwrought and hysterical to the point of absurdity. I own both films on DVD (both deserving of study), but my tastes prefer films that disturb with a velvet glove (Herzog's "Stroszek" for example) rather than with a spiked bludgeon.
I'd be happy to hear more thoughts from you. Thanks.
Reply