Alernative cinema & the auteurs: an academic reading

The idea of the auteur began with the writings of French critics in the Cinema du Cahiers magazine. These critics, such as Francois Truffaut, argued that many classical Hollywood directors were the true authors of their films. Even though these directors had less power than most do today, the French critics claimed that many directors could place their own creative stamp on films. This changed how academics looked at old films, especially Hollywood genre films, and set up a new discourse in film studies.
The auteur theory started in France, but Andrew Sarris brought it to America. Sarris explained the Cahiers idea of a director as the true author of a film. For example, Alfred Hitchcock directed a number of films in the thriller and mystery genres. He worked within the Hollywood system and had financial success producing films for a mass audience. Proponents of the auteur theory would argue that Hitchcock was an exceptional artist because he put his own personal style into these popular films. The films were a result of his artistic vision, even though the Hollywood system involved large crews working on films. He is the true “author” of his films, according to the theory.
Auteur critics used the theory to study many directors who worked within the old studio system. John Ford, Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges, and Billy Wilder were just a few of the directors that auteur critics looked at. The critics admired the ability of Ford to create his own style while pumping out Western after Western each year. Their writings impacted some of their own films they would later make, as well as other European filmmakers.
As the European filmmakers wrote about auteurs in classic Hollywood cinema, they began to make their own films. These films and their writings influenced a new generation of American filmmakers. As film became a major in universities in the 1960’s, students learned the technique of classic filmmakers and studied the auteur writings. They became very interested in the European writings and new films.
As more students went to film school, the European filmmakers gained influence. As David Cook notes, Hollywood was struggling through financial problems and facing its lowest output ever in the late 1960’s. Europeans were winning critical respect while American box office numbers were dropping. Studios began to look for young directors who would follow the European model and speak to the youth audience. The first generation of film students provided a fresh view on films that Hollywood sought, especially after the success of unorthodox, youth-driven films like Easy Rider and The Graduate.
These young directors, as Cook notes, were trained in the auteur theory and came at low prices to studios. These directors, however, did not function in the same way as the older directors they studied. By 1970, many of the larger studios were breaking up or being sold to major corporate conglomerates. The studio system, undone by court rulings over antitrust laws, had been falling apart for years. Directors were no longer tied to specific studios. They had the opportunity to work on a film-by-film basis. Sometimes, they even had the chance to write and/or produce the film as well. Some successful new directors, like Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas, would even make enough money to start their own studios for independent production of films. Directors were not the only ones getting more freedom. Actors, who traditionally stayed in front of the camera, began looking for ways to direct, write, or produce their films.
The major filmmakers of the new generation thus had more freedom to become auteurs. Even though the Cahiers critics admired directors who worked within a strict system, the new filmmakers used their freedom to create films those critics would be proud of. They used their expansive historical knowledge of films to create new films with a sense of that history. As Cook puts it, unlike classical directors or more recent ones who began their careers in television, these new filmmakers had studied “film as film.”
The new filmmakers were openly aware of their artistic desires. They made their films with the artistic intent first. Even though money usually defeats art in the film industry, studios thought they could speak to the new generation, and the students often knew more about film that some of the new corporate leaders that had taken over studios, as Cook points out. If they reached the target youth audience, the studios were happy. It helped that the ratings system, which came into effect in 1968, allowed for films to use sex and violence in more overt ways than ever before. This helped them emulate the Europeans and attract teenagers.
The auteurs of this era approached their films in different ways. Some focused on blockbusters, films with high budgets and expansive advertising campaigns that managed to pull in major profits. Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Coppola (although he funded a lot of personal projects) all created blockbusters that reshaped the industry. By the end of the decade, studios began to focus on producing these big hits and ignoring smaller projects.
Just as classical directors were praised for their vision amongst financial success, these new directors achieved auteur status, despite their creative freedom. Critics noted the positive views of humanity and hope expressed in Spielberg’s work. They admired the folklore and technical wizardry of Lucas. Coppola’s exploration of the dark, psychological sides of humanity made him successful.
Not all of the new auteurs, however, followed this path. Martin Scorsese made a name for himself with many great films, but rarely achieved tremendous financial success. Scorsese focused on gritty portrayals of rough characters, especially ethnic New Yorkers. Scorsese established himself as an auteur quickly, but he is hard to classify. He remains an artist who works independently, but his films have achieved enough financial success that he has a brand name of sorts. He is, in a way, in the middle of the spectrum between independent directors like John Cassavetes and big budget directors like Steven Spielberg.
These two directors are an interesting comparison. Spielberg, considered a young maverick in the 1970’s, is now the golden standard in Hollywood. He usually has a large budget and excessive advertising on his films, striving for the “blockbuster” title and the riches it promises. Critics have accused him of going for high-concept “popcorn” films that are heavy on effects and action, but lacking in academic depth. Spileberg has, however, done serious films such as The Color Purple and, most famously, Schindler’s List. Still, Spielberg is primarily an auteur of fantasy and spectacle.
Cassavetes is another auteur that earned the maverick label in the post-war days, but his style differs greatly from Spielberg’s. Cassavetes made small, personal films on tiny budgets. He got friends and family to work on these projects in their spare time, with no hope for big profits. His films go for a rough, jarring style, rather than Spielberg’s cinematically flowing films. He tried to capture emotional intensity even if it meant showing technical flaws. Cassavetes was interested in intense character study and the improvisational skills of his actors. As Margulies notes, Cassavetes thought of himself as an amateur director, not a master. Still, he influenced many filmmakers and created his own style. He is an auteur as much as the other famous filmmakers of the time.
Today, the study of film has reached a new level. With improvements in technology and the dedication of historians to save films, students now can access almost any major film, and lots of minor ones. The auteur theory still appears in film studies, with its focus on the film “brats” of the 1970’s as well as the classic Hollywood auteurs. Students have an in-depth knowledge of these directors and their styles, and many young filmmakers use techniques from the masters in their work.
There is a divide, however, between mainstream and independent directors. Many mainstream directors will work within a certain genre, just like some of the old masters. The corporate dominance of Hollywood leaves little room for these directors to express themselves artistically, although some manage. Tim Burton, for example, has had success with a very unique (often darkly humorous) style, as had David Fincher. Many directors, however, serve as pulp sellers to a corporate plan.
Independent directors are more likely to focus on the artistry of film and imprint a personal style on their films. Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino have made fame by doing things their way, with specific aspects recognizable as their style. These films sometimes end up in art houses, where the profit pales in comparison to megaplexes, but their filmmakers can earn financial success. There are, however, few truly independent directors. Even the small companies that produce offbeat films are often owned by the large corporations that control major studios (the next essay will address this in more depth). Still, many filmmakers today do strive for auteur status. The idea that a director can become a brand name, such as Tarantino, suggests that the director will have a loyal following of fans to see new films.
The auteur theory has influenced several generations of filmmakers, and it still holds influence today. Modern filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson strive to get the auteur label, even as Hollywood remains in a stage of corporate mergers and advertising dominance. The future generations of filmmakers will study the past auteurs and learn from them. The ideas that Truffaut and others expressed in the 1950’s will live on, even as the industry changes.

Alternative cinema is cinema that gets its funding from independent sources, which has generally meant sources independent of major Hollywood studios. Today, that definition is changing, but alternative cinema remains a product not suited for the mainstream. Not only is the production of these films done outside the major studio system, but also the audience the filmmakers seek often is not the general populous that major Hollywood films do. Alternative cinema usually seeks specific audiences, which is how the entire process started many years ago.
Alternative cinema has been around for almost as long as major films have been made. The early alternative cinemas, as Ross describes them, were aimed at audiences who were excluded from decent representation in the major films. The groups that Hollywood ignored or mocked decided to make their own films for their own people. These films were screened in unconventional theaters for a specific audience. Ross explains that, after the success of the racially controversial epic Birth of a Nation, several blacks began making films of their own. They were black films made by black filmmakers for a black audience. They played in black parts of cities. They gave their audience a voice in film, even if the majority of America did not get to see them.
Ross notes that blacks were not the only minority group to make their own alternative films. Jews, disappointed at their non-existence in major Hollywood films (despite several Jewish film executives), began making their own films. They often used Hebrew as the language and, like the black films, played in cities to their specific audiences. Ross notes that homosexuals (although very rarely) and radical government groups also produced low-budget, alternative films for themselves. Extremists from the right and left, Ross notes, tried to influence public opinion with their documentary/propaganda or dramatic/propaganda films. Any minority group that felt underrepresented in Hollywood films could make their own films for cheap and advertise them through word of mouth.
Alternative cinema was more than just minority groups making films. Some documentaries played in small theaters, like Nanook of the North, a story about Eskimos that was partly constructed. People could find alternative theaters that played small productions from America and the rest of the world. Marxist groups screened Soviet films, and other controversial films from overseas made their way into small theaters. Some European films did well at the box office, so Americans had a chance to see non-Hollywood fare if they looked for it. Many did not, but small production companies continued to carry out cheap films. Some directors managed to squeeze in small art films, like John Cassavetes.
Cassavetes, as mentioned in the last essay, took a different approach to making films. He used his own money earned from Hollywood productions, along with the help of his actor friends, to finance personal films. Cassavetes is an extremely important figure in alternative cinema. He would serve as inspiration for later independent filmmakers who balanced Hollywood profit films with personal art projects. Dennis Hopper, Robert Redford, and others looked to Cassavetes as a model of working in Hollywood while still making the films that they wanted to. He set the standard for actors to be more involved in production.
Besides the art, race, and other forms of legitimate alternative cinema, there was the forbidden fruit of pornography. Pornography, as Ross explains, was also available from an early time in various places. Shortly after the Hays office opened, it disappeared from nickelodeons and was offered in private places or seedy theaters in rough urban areas. Pornography was considered “outlaw” cinema, and it was never promoted openly.
This was the pattern throughout the first half of the Twentieth century. Hollywood dominated the mainstream movie market, while a few minority films reached their specific audiences. Things began to change after the 1950’s. The antitrust laws that began the demise of the studio system promised more hope for independent production. The censorship codes were being stretched as well. By 1968, Hollywood would be in financial trouble. To reverse this, Hollywood instituted a ratings system. This allowed filmmakers to handle subjects that they could not touch previously. As mentioned in the previous essay, studios looked to young filmmakers experienced in European styles of filmmaking to produce films that would speak to the youth market.
At this point, Hollywood studios realized that they needed to market their films to audiences they had ignored before, or else they would continue to lose business. The youth market became their main goal, and they catered to young people of all kind. They began to include these marginalized groups into films often catered for the young people in each group. The most obvious example of this is the “blaxploitation” film.
Studios, as Ross notes, began backing independent black productions of films that starred black people in flashy, urban roles. Films like Superfly, Shaft, Foxy Brown, and others spoke to a young audience of urban blacks, who flocked to urban theaters to see these examples of black (anti) heroes. Studios made money off the kids, so they continued to finance these small projects for a few years. They eventually saw, however, that these films attracted negative attention, and turned once again towards making big films for more mainstream audiences. For a few years, independent black cinema brought in money, but after the wake of civil rights, Hollywood studios tried to blend minority groups into their mainstream, high-budget productions. They did not have as strong a voice.
An interesting development happened with pornography after the ratings change. It never became completely mainstream, but porn was allowed to advertise itself as explicit. The initial ratings labeled porn movies, as well as serious films with explicit content, with an ominous “‘X” rating that scared away many mainstream publications from advertising them. Porn makers used the controversy of the “X” rating, as Wyatt notes, to attract audiences interested in the extreme. Even though it was still marginalized, the porn industry thrived on its open availability. Wyatt points out that some of the early pornographic films were quite tame, but intrigued audiences that were not used to any explicit sexuality in films. Ross notes that some filmmakers made films right after the ratings system that crossed the line from serious to porn, such as Russ Meyer’s. Some early pornographic films like I am Curious (Yellow) and other European films presented serious ideas with a few explicit sex scenes. They bridged the gap, Wyatt says.
As time went on, however, pornography became less and less about filmmaking and more about sex. Serious films like A Clockwork Orange and Midnight Cowboy that received “X” ratings were eventually reduced to “R.” The “X” rating became exclusively a marketing tool for hardcore pornography. Today, even that has been replaced with an “NC-17” rating. Pornography is a large industry, but it remains clearly outside mainstream Hollywood production.
The youth trend that began in the late 1960’s continues today, but the way that independent films are made has changed. The studios that began hiring young, maverick directors realized that the successful ones were those who could come up with blockbusters, like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Independent-minded directors like Martin Scorsese and David Lynch, who broke in with the 1970’s crowd, soon found that major studios wanted to budget mainstream films again. In the era of corporate dominance, as said in the last essay, studios moved back to the spectacle of big-budget, high-concept films.
This left some of the artistic directors who gained fleeting success in the 1970’s to rethink their patterns. Scorsese made some films that could reap profits, but Francis Ford Coppola (after his initial success) and others had a rough time in the 1980’s. As conglomerates were swallowing up all the major studios, some filmmakers found ways to produce their films. Some turned to foreign producers for funds, knowing their art films would be popular around the world and earn back money overseas. Some began independent-minded production companies, like Harvey Weinstein at Miramax. Some relied on private contributions and their own savings. Independent cinema existed, but the general public often ignored it.
In the 1990’s, as corporate takeovers continued, studios noticed that they could make profits off of alternative cinema. Films that cost little but could bring in modest profits were attractive to companies that specialized in blockbusters. Many of the successful independent companies, like Miramax, were snatched up by major studios looking to dominate the market. Today, even most independent companies are affiliated with larger corporations. Disney owns Miramax, Sony has its Sony Pictures Classics line, Fox has its Fox Searchlight line, and so forth. Truly independent cinema is rare these days.
As a result, alternative cinema has changed. After the demise of the studio system in the late 1960’s, many films have been done by individual production companies and financed by studios, especially for distribution and advertising. Thus, filmmakers have some sense of freedom, but not entirely. Major studios often shy away from controversial subject matter, so they give them to the lower-budget wings. Art houses host these films that are deemed a little too risqué for mainstream audiences. Critics argue that truly maverick films, however, rarely make any splash. Studios reserve controversy and quirky, offbeat films for their “independent” branches, but they can refuse truly wild films.
Many critics bemoan the corporate dominance of today, expressing the thought that studios still ignore the minority groups that once used alternative cinema for expression. The same complaints that occurred during the Blaxploitation era come up nowadays in discussions about the representation of blacks in film. Even as more black actors became stars in the modern era, critics suggest that they do not help the community. Black critics accused Sidney Poitier and Bill Cosby of being “too white,” with the suggestion that Hollywood had simply taken away their identity as blacks to fit them into the mainstream. Many Hollywood comedies today pander to the stereotypes of the “wild black” people and the “stodgy white” people and what happens when they enter each other’s environment. Homosexuals, who finally achieved some respectability in the 1980’s, are often portrayed in stereotypical ways. Besides blacks, Italians, Southerners, Hispanics, and Arabs have also complained that they too often are villains in films.
Some alternative cinema focuses on feminist issues as well, but Hollywood seemed to repel the feminist movement in the 1980’s. As Ross notes, many of the films during this decade demonized women who sought careers and nontraditional roles. Thus, Hollywood has not truly accepted all the groups that once (and still do sometimes) used alternative cinema to express their frustration with Hollywood. Many critics would argue that Hollywood exploits these groups and tries to make them fit in to the mainstream, rather than accept them as who they are.
Alternative cinema has had a rich an interesting history, and many serious filmmakers today do try to continue its legacy. In this era of big business dominance, however, the original expression of alternative cinema is too often forgotten.