Analyse That

Analyse That

Auteur Theory

The term auteur was first used in the film world at the back end of the 1940’s and was first coined in this context by American film critic Andrew Sarris. In basic terms it denotes that a film director is the main author of a film and it belongs to them. It is usually pointed out the most for people who have a distinct style, such as Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. Many films fall under the category of having been made by an auteur director, and a director can easily be recognised by the different kinds of shots or actors they use.

For the purposes of this article I will be using the example of Guillermo Del Toro, who I believe is very much an auteur director. He has directed numerous well known and lesser known films, some English and some Spanish reflecting his Mexican/American life, such as; Hellboy 1 and 2, Pacific Rim, Pans Labyrinth and The Devils Backbone. Del Toro has a very distinct style. He often transitions between making big blockbuster Hollywood films to smaller Spanish films. Del Toro is a great example of an auteur director because you can immediately tell his films from any other director, dark fantasy settings with excellent practical effects, insectile imagery, clockwork, monsters, heavy use of amber lighting and some kind of religious subtext with the same recurring actors, all making Del Toro an auteur in my eyes. The effect that an auteur can have on the production is astounding, sometimes completely redefining the way the film looks, especially in cases of directors such as Del Toro and Tim Burton or Wes Anderson. When Del Toro creates the visual aspects of a film, he uses his previous experience in make-up and special effects to create the look he wants, using incredible practical effects rather than CGI to complete the look of the characters and monsters.

In his most critically acclaimed film, Pan’s Labyrinth, he showcases all of the telling signs of a Del Toro film. The film takes place during the rise of fascism after the Spanish civil war in 1944, a dark setting for a fantasy film. This is one of Del Toro’s main aspects, setting his films in some dark setting and showing the dark beauty of a fairy tale in this time. The film follows Ofelia, a young girl whose stepfather is a part of the Falangist military. When they arrive at a new home, Ofelia discovers an overgrown labyrinth and explores it, discovering a faun who believes she is the reincarnation of an ancient princess of the underworld, and assigns her 3 tasks in order for her to acquire her immortality. So it’s quite a mouthful. It takes heavy inspiration from old fairy tales, showing the dark side of these to portray a sort of dark beauty in the fairy tales of old, one of Del Toro’s main points in his films. Throughout the film you can see traces of Del Toro’s signature style, in the look and design of the characters, using practical effects and make-up rather than CGI for the monsters, animatronics for the giant toad and minimal CGI for the tiny fairies. The use of practical effects, make-up and animatronics outweigh the use of CGI in this film, and most films by Del Toro. There is also a slight show for his love of clockwork in this film, as the main antagonist has an obsession with his father’s pocket watch. This is further shown in the first Hellboy film, as the character Karl Ruprecht Kroenen is a clockwork man, almost, using a wind-up key to make his heart work, and winding it more to increase his reflexes. You can see more clockwork in the later scenes when Hellboy battles Karl in a circular room surrounded by moving gears. This is expanded upon in the sequel, Hellboy 2 The Golden Army, with the titular golden army being an indestructible machine army, again powered by machinery and clockwork gears, even battling the main protagonists in another circular room filled with gears. Pans Labyrinth also showcases the use of heavy amber lighting during the scene in the Pale Man’s lair, and again during the scene is the underworld area. Del Toro also uses amber lighting in Hellboy, again during the fight with Kroenen. When all of this comes together I think it is clear that Guillermo Del Toro is an auteur director, all of these points combine to make a very distinct and recognisable style for a director of film, and it is easy to tell when it is Del Toro who has made a film you are watching.

Another way of spotting an auteur director is the way they use actors and how they often use the same ones over and over again. Del Toro does this with people like Ron Perlman or Doug Jones. Ron Perlman has appeared in 7 different productions by Del Toro, namely as the main protagonist in the series Hellboy. Doug Jones has appeared in 6 productions and is often used as a creature actor in his films, playing the Faun and the Pale Man in Pans Labyrinth and Abe Sapien, the fish man, in the Hellboy series. He has also worked with the same cinematographer, Guillermo Navarro on 6 different productions. The reason an auteur uses the same actors often can be different depending on the auteur in question. It can be because of how they look or act, or something as simple as they are just good friends and trust each other. This is just one of many ways to spot an auteur director, among many others. Many of Del Toro’s productions are easily recognisable just from the cast, if you see a film poster and it credits Ron Perlman as an actor in it, your first assumption is to say ‘Oh it’s another Del Toro film’ purely because so many films with Ron or Doug are. This is not the case, however, with all auteurs, as with Wes Anderson, who often uses a wide range of actors in his films, only occasionally using the same ones, often just for cameos, as is the case with his use of Bill Murray in The Grand Budapest Hotel. While Bill Murray has appeared in more productions by Wes than anyone else, 8 out of 9, he only has a cameo in this film, so the audience will not automatically assume it is a Wes Anderson film just because Bill Murray is in it, meaning the use of actors in auteur films can work both ways in spreading their auteurism.

Narrative Analysis

The narrative of a film can change drastically when a specific director or production company are making the film, however, the genre more often than not will define the way the film plays out, even down to some cliché lines or scenes. For example, in rom-coms, the story is almost always the same in many regards, boy meets girl, they don’t get along, they are driven apart, and then they get back together and fall in love. Many films have tried to alter this formula but then the film may change genre to something else, or may not attract as big an audience, so the narrative of a film in a specific genre must stay similar to everything else. the reason the story stays the same throughout each different film may be because of what  In the film ‘Just Like Heaven’, the narrative is altered somewhat by the fact that it is a fantasy rom-com. It follows David Abbott who moves into a new apartment after the previous tenant, Elizabeth Masterson, was involved in a car accident on her way to a blind date. He begins to see Elizabeth’s ghost in the apartment. He tries to get rid of her through exorcisms but they begin to bond, until eventually David falls in love with her. After it turns out she is in a coma and will soon be taken off life support, David tries to steal her from the hospital, but she wakes up, not remembering anything that had happened between them. Later on Elizabeth returns to her old apartment and finds David on the roof, they kiss, and she remembers everything that happened between them, and they fall in love. Even though in this particular film one of the main cast is supposedly dead and is a ghost, it still follows all the main points of a regular rom-com, boy meets girl, in this case her ghost, they don’t get along, she wants him out of her apartment and he wants to exercise her, they are forced to be together due to some events that happen in the film, a man collapses in a café and Elizabeth must tell David how to save him, they are driven apart when David is kicked out by Elizabeth’s sister when she thinks he is crazy, one of them realises they are destined to be together, it is revealed to David that the blind date was for Elizabeth to meet him, they try and get back together again, David goes to the hospital to save Elizabeth, they fall in love finally, they meet up on the roof and kiss. In this film however, they are separated twice, once when David is branded as crazy and is forced to save Elizabeth, although this is a minor point in the film, and again when she wakes up from her coma and doesn’t remember anything about the two of them. This shows a kind of cyclical format in the film, repeating the same point, although it still begins and ends the same way, proving who hard it is to break the mould of a solid genre narrative. Other examples of simplistic narratives in rom-coms are; ‘How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days ‘, ‘Serendipity’ and ‘Enchanted’. These films all follow the same structure as each other, but may change certain points to make them feel more original. Many people point out the simple and silly stories in these films, and say they are dumb films for dumb people. This is what happens when the wrong target audience see a film, it isn’t aimed at them so they aren’t attracted to it. Films can also use different types of narrative structure and different, out of the ordinary characters though these things are quite rare in rom-coms. Most of these films follow the rules set out in different theories like Todorov’s theory of narrative, in which he explains that most stories follow a similar path; they all start at equilibrium, go through a

disruption, come to a realisation, restore order and circle back around to equilibrium again. This can be seen in almost every rom-com ever, especially in Just Like Heaven. The beginning equilibrium would be when everything is going fine for Mark Ruffalo’s character, David, after he moves into his new home, the disruption would be the ghost of Reese Witherspoon’s character, Elizabeth, trying to kick him out, the realisation would be them figuring out they are in love, the restoring of order would be David saving her life and the new equilibrium would be them getting together in the end. This type of narrative structure is so easy to follow and spot when watching a film it is almost painful, but it works, it’s easy to keep up with and gets the point of the film across well. When it comes to Vladimir Propp’s theory it is a bit harder to pin it to rom-coms like with Todorov. Propp discussed that every film has the same kind of characters; the hero, the villain, the helper, the princess, the father, the dispatcher, the donor and the false hero. Propp said that every story has these 8 character types in them, but this obviously isn’t the case with Just Like Heaven. The hero is obviously David, the helper would be their psychic friend and the princess is Elizabeth, but aside from these obvious ones it is hard to point exactly who the villain is in this film, or who the donor would be. You could say that the helper doubles as the dispatcher in that he also tell the hero of the princesses fate and tells him he needs to save her. In other films it is easier to see, such as Enchanted, where the villain is obviously the evil witch, but not all rom-coms share this idea of covering every base in Propp’s theory. This can be seen as the smartest move a rom-com can make, considering the general audiences view on them, and can help to sell a film like this as being a bit out of the ordinary or different.