Exam Question Due 27.1.21

I partially agree with this statement. While there are many examples of auteur-driven work where the director is the most important creative force on the production and content of a film, there are just as mamy where the studio is more responsible for this than the director. Sometimes, this depends on the era, as during the Hollywood studio system, most films were by directors-for-hire, while in the New Hollywood era, many auteur-driven works rose to prominence in Hollywood. One may also argue that other creative forces such as writers or cinematographers are just as important as the director in many cases too.

The first film that I studied was Casablanca, which released in 1942 under the Hollywood studio system, specifically by Warner Bros, This typically means that the studio, and especially the producer is mostly, if not entirely responsible for all creative elements of the film. Films in this era are generally considered to be "factory produced" and part of a "product line" as the majority of films were made under this system for as big of a profit as possible by a director-for-hire.The "big 5" studios of this time were Parammout, Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Warner Brothers Pictures, RKO and 20th Century Pictures, each of which owned chains of cinemas so that their films got shown in as many areas as possible. Many argue that this applies to Casablanca, which in some ways it does, as it was only filmed in the space of few weeks, and directed by Michael Curtiz who was a director-for hire. However, it is also debatable that while Casablanca was originally intended, like other films from this era, to be forgotten once they were released and the studio have received a profit, the auteur signature of Curtiz including creative flourishes such as a noir-esque use of lighting and shadows and fast paced dialogue to advance the plot, which is arguably responsible for Casablanca's legacy and popularity to this day. Another example as to why the director may be the biggest creative influence, even within this era alone, is the equally as famous and prominent to this day Citizen Kane, as well as the films of Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra and Billy Wilder. However, this does not change the fact that the vast majority of films made in Hollywood during this era, fit into the Hollywood studio system/

The other film that I studied was Apocalypse Now, which released in 1979 under the New Hollywood system. This was an era where Hollywood was led by auteur-driven work, with the rise of directors such as Martin Scorsese, Terrence Malick and debatably Steven Spielberg. (despite Spielberg birthing the "blockbuster" era which ultimately killed the New Hollywood era) This is because, throughout the 1960s,  Hollywood lost touch with a young, rebellious audience due to the hippie movement, which followed a Supreme Court ruling in 1948 that decided that the "big 5" studios of the Hollywood studio system could no longer own cinema chains as it created an unfair monopoly. Due to this,  many studios gave large budgets to young directors straight out of film school to do whatever they wanted in the late 1960s and the 1970s, many of which had radical ideas of what film could do and really wanted to push the boundaries of Hollywood and film itself, much like the French New Wave of the 1950s and 1960s, but with a much higher budget and a much bigger international audience. New Hollywood birthed some of the most iconic films of all time, including but not limited to The Godfather, Taxi Driver and Chinatown. Apocalypse Now is no exception to this, as the film itself and it's defiance of the studios as well as the production hell that everyone on set went through remains iconic to this day. Apocalypse Now is almost the antithesis of everything that made a film successful in the Hollywood Studio system in the way much is left ambiguous and open to interpretation, it is critical of the American government and the fact it went way over budget and over schedule, with Coppola risking all the money he had on the production of it. However, some will argue that while Apocalypse Now is of course a groundbreaking achievement, that it was still released under a studio to please audiences and make a profit,following a traditional narrative, therefore despite being entirely different to the films of the classic Hollywood studio system, it is not too dissimilar in the reasons that it was made, only for a different audience. 

While both Curtiz and Coppola arguably both have auteur signature, it is generally accepted that Coppola's is much stronger. The auteur theory is the theory that the director is the major creative force on a film, with the word "auteur" coming from the French word for "author". An auteur signature are distinct ways you can tell one auteur's work from another. Wes Anderson is a clear example of this, for his use of a vibrant colour palette, distinct sense of humour, perfectly symmetrical shots and large-scale plots built from quite mundane things or situations. Another entirely different but equally as clear example of this is Quentin Tarantino, who is known for his use of graphic violence, profanity, non-linear narrative structures, heavy inspiration from previous films such as exploitation films and long scenes driven entirely by dialogue.  Coppola is known for scenes that are large in scale, use of montage, continuous shots and a very distinct use of lighting and shadows. Curtiz was largely a director-for-hire, directing 181 films from 1912 to 1961. He is often credited as "understanding the studio system better than anyone else", and because of this people tend not to acknowledge him as an auteur, however, this can be seen as an auteur signature within itself, as he heavily focused on storytelling and narrative within Casablanca, as well as his other films such as The Adventures of Robin Hood and White Christmas. He was also fascinated by movement, heavily featuring transport in his films, such as the plane at the end of Casablanca, and commonly featured melodrama in his films. Despite this, there isn't really a common theme that connects each of his films; while both are distinct in their own way, the shadowy noir-esque production of Casablanca is completely different to the vibrant technicolour of The Adventures of Robin Hood. However, this can also be applied to Coppola, as the psychedelic look and feel of something like Apocalypse Now blatantly contradicts the dark, bleak look of The Godfather, even if Coppola carries some of the same techniques from The Godfather and The Godfather Part II to Apocalypse Now.

Casablanca follows classic Hollywood film form perfectly. It uses each of the components of film form to their basic desired use; this includes cinematography, editing, mise-en-scene, sound and performance. Each of these components are used to establish setting and characters, to explain and help an audience understand the narrative, and to express the themes of the film.  An example of this is the scene that introduces us to Rick's Cafe in Casablanca. We first see it as a vibrant, bustling environment as we see  activity happening everywhere, as the camera first moves towards Sam singing. We are then introduced to various scenarios happening throughout the bar, which shows us it is not how we may have first assumed, as we see greed and selfishness throughout the bar. While this is happening, tension builds before we are finally introduced to Rick, creating a mystery surrounding his character. All of the components in this scene are very traditional. and do not break classic film form at all. However, the scene in which we first meet Willard in Apocalypse Now debatably does not use classic film form. In this scene we quickly learn that he is an alcoholic, as well as mentally ill. He explains by voiceover his situation, but due to his rambling, a lot of it is quite incoherent. There is then an unconventional use of music as Willard has a breakdown. During this, the edits, which are meant to be unnoticeable according to classic film form, are very clear, using fades as well as other transitions just to cut to the next shot. Despite the components of film form being entirely different, this scene still serves a similar purpose to the scene referenced from Casablanca. Although there is little about the narrative to be understood after this scene, it still establishes characters and setting, and the themes of the film are expressed, despite the methods differing. 

Casablanca was given a budget of $1,039,000, which considering inflation is now the equivalent of $16,603,220 today. Apocalypse Now was given a budget of $31,500,000, considering inflation this is now the equivalent of $113,015,578. Even when both budgets have inflation put into consideration, it is clear that the budget of Apocalypse Now was much larger production, giving Coppola a lot of freedom. Despite this, the production of Apocalypse Now was much riskier, as Coppola claimed that he was "risking all the money he had" on Apocalypse Now, and the production of the film took three years. Meanwhile, due to the Hollywood studio system, the production of Casablanca took only 10 weeks, to be released soon after. Both films, despite being entirely different and both doubted by the studio, were instant successes, both receiving several Academy Award nominations. The fact that both were received so well despite being so different shows how different the audiences of 1942 and 1979 were from each other. However, one thing that both films have in common is that both films had doubts from their respective studios as to how audiences of the time would receive the film, meaning that while they did so in completely different ways, both films broke the mould of their time and era.

All of these points reinforce why I partially agree with this statement. This is clearer in some instances such as Apocalypse Now, and other films of the New Hollywood era due to the fact they are much more auteur-driven works. However, in certain instances you can argue that this is also the case about some films from the Hollywood studio system too, such as Casablanca, despite this not being as obvious.