To what extent could Wes Anderson be considered as auteur director?

Wes Anderson is an American film director, producer, screenwriter and actor, whom has been nominated and won various awards over the years. Anderson’s visual style is “noteworthy, recognisable and influential” (Kunze, 2014, pg2). His visual style has key elements that has enabled his films to earn such respect. There are many different characteristics that contribute towards Anderson’s unique aesthetic, such as the narratives, mise-en-scene, camera work and actors. Many of these characteristics enable the audience to recognise an Anderson film instantly. This is why I would argue Wes Anderson is an auteur director, due to his unique visual style. The auteur theory appeared due to French cinema “suffering from a tradition of quality”

(Staples, 1966, pg2).  Wes Anderson in my opinion is far from traditional cinema; he breaks the norms that we see in contemporary Hollywood. An example is the dry humour and narrative. Anderson does not follow the Todorov's narrative theory, his movies are split into different chapters which often focus on a specific character. Due to not following the mainstream approach, Wes Anderson films are audience is niche. However, he is still able to make a financially successful movie. I plan to investigate what justifies Wes Anderson to be considered an auteur director. I will be focusing on the three films The Grand Budapest Hotel (Anderson, 2014), The Royal Tenenbaums (Anderson, 2001) and Fantastic Mr. Fox. (Anderson, 2009). By conducting research into the auteur theory, I will explore three characteristics from Anderson films, the mise-en-scene, camera work and narratives to form a supportive argument.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this literature review I will be exploring academic literature around the areas of the auteur theory. It is important to develop an understanding as to what characteristics in a director contribute towards them being labeled as an auteur.

The Auteur theory was first introduced in the early 1950’s. The director is argumently the equivalent to the author of a novel. Often a film will have different individuals who have control of one department such as costume design, producer and director. Santas defines an auteur as “a director who controls all aspects of film-making” (Santas, 2001, pg.18). Many were also given the name to be differentiated from Hollywood directors. It is argued that people will enjoy and see a film due to the director being known as an auteur. However, Santas argues the “stories still had to be good”, no matter who the director, studio or star was. Auteur’s have therefore developed as a director who has a distinct style, they may also be the screenwriters (Santas, 2001, pg.18). Although their style must be distinct, this does not mean that they can’t have similarities to other texts, as it is a very flexible theory (Scorsese, 2001, pg14). Holly speaks about Andrew Sarris, a film critic and expert on auteur theory. (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 14). The awareness of auteurism encouraged giving underappreciated directors respect. To be truly recognised as an auteur, the director must recognise that film is a work of art. Santas used Chaplin as an example. He writes how ‘The Great Dictator’ conveyed a powerful message and that Chaplin was able to present this due to his different career backgrounds (Santas, 2001, pg. 25). Although, Aleksandrowicz believes “directors can be recognized as auteurs solely on the basis of their directing” (Aleksandrowicz, 2016, pg9). Many other individuals involved in filmmaking dislike the theory as they believe it downplays their role during the production (Santas, 2001, pg19). Santas neither disagree or agrees with this statement however, states that “film is a collaborative art” (Santas, 2001, pg19). Therefore, we should not forget the importance of the other roles that take place within filmmaking. Levy agrees that “auteurists never ignore the fact that movies are collaborative art” (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 80). Astruc also agrees with this, “the filmmaker does not simply capture pictures but rather creates art” (Aleksandrowicz, 2016, pg. 7). When Andrew was conducting his study he used visual analysis and psychoanalytic insight (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 15). He realised when analysing the mise-en-scene the directors had similar styles in all their movies (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 15). This is a similar approach I am planning to take, when “searching for thematic and stylistic consistencies among” Wes Anderson films (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 78). Sarris wrote to assess whether or not a director is an auteur, is to analyse the visual style. (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 79). Aleksandrowicz highlighted the point that even if the working conditions were poor, the director should still be able to maintain an artistic vision (Aleksandrowicz, 2016, pg. 9). However, Sarris argues this means the director has less influence on the “literary content” (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 80), whereas Santas argued many auteur directors were also screenwriters. I believe depending on the director similarities in narratives is just as throughout and directors usually go for a film with similar themes. Research shows mise-en-scene as the main contributor towards what makes a director auteur. Levy believes splits it into four parts. 1. The director is the films author, the “film should be explored as an essentially visual medium”. 2. Their films collectively are important. 3. Directors “are proven to be cinematically interesting”, they usually contain meanings. 4. Mise-en-scene, this is the most important idea Sarris argues, they have been “placed under the director’s immediate personal control” (Scorsese, 2001, pg. 15).

These theorists explain well what is needed to be an auteur director however, I have conducted research into previous research that interprets Anderson as an auteur. Gooch discusses how Anderson could be considered as a late-capitalist auteur (Kunze, 2014, pg. 181). He touches on some of the points I plan to elaborate on such as Andersons theme of “problematic relation between children and fathers” (Kunze, 2014, pg. 181). He argues this narrative within his films and his aesthetic help him to “construct himself as an auteur” (Kunze, 2014, pg 183). He is often criticised and accused of racism. This is due his narratives often reflecting himself, a white male. Browning states “Wes Anderson films look like are other Wes Anderson films” (Browning, 2011, pg10). He argues a reason for this is because Anderson has an important say in all areas of production in his films, “resulting in a distinctive style” (Browning, 2011, pg10).

2. METHODOLOGY

I have chosen to use a textual analysis as my form of approach, specifically a rhetorical analysis. I am specifically choosing a rhetorical analysis as it will encourage me to think about the purpose of Wes Anderson, his unique style and why this may appeal to his audience. The methodology is used as it is thought that media texts, depending on the individual, can be perceived to have different meanings. I believe it is an appropriate methodology for me to use as I can critique Wes Anderson as a director and his approaches that might make one consider him as an auteur. I hope to find patterns used throughout the examples by dissecting specific scenes, it’s a “skill that that is grounded in ‘looking and listening’ closely to what is actually (physically, manifestly) present in individual films and film extract” (Wildfeuer and Bateman, 2016, pg.1). The analysis uses many different approaches such as mise-en-scene, semiotics, looks at the socio-cultural impacts and audience studies. It is important to use other approaches to have a better understanding of the meaning of the text. These specific approaches relate to my study, for example mise-en-scene contributes immensely to the auteur theory. Semiotics will help me analyse whether or not the scenes contain signs that have deeper meanings. Wes Anderson is also known for having recurring themes in his films, I’ll be able to see how they relate to a contemporary society. A textual analysis is useful when looking at the themes used in films, Gray discusses how “texts were shaped by strong ideologies” (Gray, 2003, pg. 129), through analysis we can therefore decode these messages.

My methodology draws on the concept of mise-en-scene, which I use to explore Anderson’s status as an auteur. Mise-en-scene plays an important role when considering whether or not a director is an auteur. Hoveyda argues for an auteur to be considered original, the techniques they use are important (Aleksandrowicz, 2016, pg. 9). The director would dictate where objects should go, as it “usually involves planning in advance” (Bordwell et al, 2013, pg.113). Kirihara argues it is the mise-en-scene that enables the auteur to showcase his individuality into the film (Kirihara, 1992, pg. 20).  The mise-en-scene ranges from setting, costumes, makeup, lighting and staging (Bordwell et al, 2013, pg.115). Bordwell and Thompson both go into depth explaining how each of these components can create a different aesthetic for the film. For example, settings can either be imaginary places of specific locations (Pramaggiore and Wallis, 2005, pg.60). The type of set predicts how much control the director will have, it is harder to be able to predict the weather and this can change the whole films aesthetic (Pramaggiore and Wallis, 2005, pg.61). Truffaut describes auteur directors as ‘audacious’ as they’re able to “realise their mise-en-scene”, they control “the camerawork, light, pacing, control over their actors, editing, etc.” (Aleksandrowicz, 2016, pg. 8).

I plan to pick scenes from three Wes Anderson films that I believe provide enough evidence for him him to be considered an auteur. I will specifically focus on the approaches used by Anderson that will support the auteur theory. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a stop-motion animated film, it would be interesting to look at themes within the storyline, as it discusses the parenthood and troubles with identity. His use of symmetrical framing is present throughout, despite it being an animation. The Grand Budapest Hotel has an interesting use of colour and mise-en-scene that has become very recognisable, through their signs I’ll be able to decode what the director is inferring. The Royal Tenenbaums use of unnatural and iconic camera work may also strengthen the argument. All three films also show Wes Anderson's use of regular collaborations. These examples will enable me to provide a supported argument. 

3. FINDINGS

Wes Anderson use of mise-en-scene is repetitive and arguably is what has made his films so iconic and recognisable. His use of colour in his props, costumes and set design are often inspired by the 70’s, their designs are stylized and some argue pretentious compared to everyday life.

The Grand Budapest Hotel ranges from different eras, the scene I will be focusing on is based in 1932. In ‘Part 4: The society of the crossed keys’ Anderson is able to create this sense of a new set and location for each member of the crossed keys. The use of title sequences beforehand contributes towards the idea of it being set in a new location, as each of the title sequences show nine photos that are supposedly taken from the location. This is a common trait used by Anderson, he uses title sequences to split his films into chapters. The made up locations adds to the recurring dry humour in his movies. It is also implied that each key is different through the change of colour in ribbon, the use of a metal key also contributes towards which time period it is set in.

Anderson’s films follow specific colour palettes, often a character’s costume colour will link with a prop in the background. The colour schemes range from “blues, yellows, reds and oranges” (Dilley, 2017, pg2). These are colour schemes which are used for each different location. For example, the Palazzo Principessa hotel has an orange and red colour scheme, this is the same colour as the background drop and key colour. We are also able to tell the difference from the lighting, each time we see the lighting focus on different aspects of the set, they highlight props that signify it is a different location. The costumes worn by each receptionist are very exaggerated and unrealistic, this is a very well-known trait of Anderson. The costumes are also a clear signifier of what era the film is based in. Anderson has a reputation of having an obsession with symmetry and creating aesthetically pleasing scenes, their costume colour’s also match the keys ribbons in the background. The links in the colours can be seen throughout, they’re even implied by the bell boys. Dilley described the costumes as “pretentiously elaborate” (Dilley, 2017, pg. 1). Caldwell explains that “props can also reappear from scene to scene (...) developing more significance and importance” (Caldwell and Jones, 2011, pg. 18), when they’re repeated they’re called motifs. They’re important in this scene as Anderson is emphasising the importance of their job and the responsibilities they have due to being able to go into any bedroom. Objects such as the telephones used were seen in each location but different colours, although they weren’t supposed to be the center of the attention they can be described as irises, as the audience would recognise the difference of each location by the corner of their eye. Anderson has proved himself to be consistent, as he always uses the same colour palette throughout.

To be argued as an auteur theory, it is important to secure a reoccurring style. This would mean the audience would be able to recognise your art anywhere. The narrative plays an important part in this factor. Wes Anderson’s use of similar themes within the narratives throughout his collection of films contributes towards the argument that he is a auteur director. Dilley states “the majority of his films have revolved around the topic of parents” (Dilley, 2017, pg6). I have noticed in many of Anderson films there is a strong father or male figure, Kunze writes “Anderson’s films often seem to be about nothing except fathers” (Kunze, 2014, pg. 181). For example, Mr. Gustave in The Grand Budapest Hotel, Royal Tenenbaum in The Royal Tenenbaum’s and Mr. Fox in Fantastic Mr. Fox. However, these characters are often flawed. In a specific scene we see Mrs. Fox confronting Mr. Fox about his flaws and ability to not keep promises. Although he is trying to provide for his family, he is also causing more trouble. The camera moves to a close up onto their faces, this shows the emotions in the fox’s eyes. Mr. Fox, although trying to do good is distracted by bad temptations, “because I’m a wild fox”, his character seems lost in finding his purpose and ground between being recognised as a ‘fantastic fox’ or a good father by putting his family's safety first. We often see a similar scene in all his films. A character often breaks down, therefore there is a sense of fragility in his characters. This idea of having a distant father has become familiar n Wes Anderson’s films such as in The Royal Tenenbaums. Dilley argues the reasons for these representations of middle aged men is due to him as a director “wrestling with the topic of maturity/immaturity” (Dilley, 2017, pg6).  It is evident Anderson is the author of his films as they represent his personal feelings and troubles, it enables him to be represented as a “cinematic artist” (Dilley, 2017, pg10).

The director plays an important part in deciding how the film will look visually. As they make “the decision as to what shots will be needed to complete a particular scene” (brown, 2016, pg. 43). Therefore, for a director to be considered auteur they must have a specific approach. Wes Anderson has an unconventional approach when it comes to his camera work. I would argue it is the most important trait that qualifies Anderson as an auteur director, as his camera work is not conventional. His style has influenced many other creators such as Casey Neistat. Wes Anderson uses symmetry to frame all of his shots, this is an element consistently. It is interesting to see how his use of symmetry changes depending on the emotions he’s trying to convey. Seitz explains this well, Anderson's camera work is “intricately choreographed (...) capturing a moment that’s serious but not serious” (Anderson et al, 2015, pg. 32). A scene from The Royal Tenenbaums shows how specifically centered Andersons shots are. The scene shows the family in the hospital. The doors are centered in the middle of the shot, they’re a sign to show that this scene has been framed symmetrically. The use of props is again important in this scene. They are placed in the set on either sides of the door, such as the writing on the window and no smoking signs on the right and left hand side. The members of the family are also facing opposite each other on either sides. This is unconventional as it would be seen as unusual for people to be placed like this in a film, or even in real scenario. The next shot shows Ben Stiller as the center of the frames, both of his sons are on either side of him. Colour is also important in this scene when representing symmetry. The red crosses in the background match the colour of their costumes. Although they are not precisely symmetrical, for example one son is reading a book in his laps, the other on the floor. There it is still evident that the set has been set up to be balanced. The camera moves to a close up and still secures a balance. This style suggests Anderson does not like to show uneven numbers in his shots. It’s rare that a director would shoot like this as it’s not traditional and may not appeal to the mass audience.

CONCLUSION

To conclude Wes Anderson is a contemporary auteur director. There are many other attributes that I could discuss, for example he uses the same actors with a few new additions. I have also recognised that Wes Anderson has consistently used the characteristics that I have investigated in all his films. My secondary research exemplifies how audiences are able to recognise whether a film was directed by Anderson. Whereas this is not always the case for mainstream Hollywood movies, as it’s not always easy to recognise who the director is through the visuals. Anderson has built up the credibility for his work to be recognised worldwide. His traits are unlike many other films, his work has inspired many independent filmmakers such as the creators of Juno and Little Miss Sunshine. Films with his characteristics did not exist beforehand as they were deemed as odd and risky for financial reasons.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wood, R (1977). IDEOLOGY, GENRE, AUTEUR. Film comment, 13(1), pp.46-51

Hillier, J. (1985). Cahiers du cinema, the 1950s. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Nelmes, J. (2003). An introduction to film studies. London: Psychology Press.

Santas, C. (2001). Responding to Film: A Text Guide for Students of Cinema Art. Rowman & Littlefield.

Scorsese, M. (2001). Citizen Sarris, American film critic. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow

Kirihara, D. (1992). Patterns of Time: Mizoguchi and the 1930s. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K (2013) Film Art: An Introduction. 10th Edition. London: McGraw Hill, pp.112-158

Browning, M (2011). Wes Anderson: Why his movies matter?. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger

Pramaggiore, M. and Wallis, T. (2005). Film. Laurence King Publishing.

Aleksandrowicz, P. (2016). The cinematography of Roger Corman. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wildfeuer, J. and Bateman, J. (2016). Film text analysis. New York: Routledge.

Caldwell, T. and Jones, V. (2011). Film analysis handbook. Insight Publications.

Brown, B. (2016). Cinematography: Theory and Practice. CRC Press.

Anderson, W., Seitz, M. and Harman, K. (2015). The Wes Anderson Collection: The Grand Budapest Hotel. Abrams.

Dilley, W. (2017). The cinema of Wes Anderson. Columbia University Press.

Kunze, P. (2014). The Films of Wes Anderson: critical essays on an Indiewood icon. Choice Reviews Online, 52(03).

Staples, D. (1966). The Auteur Theory Reexamined. Cinema Journal, 6.

Film:

The Grand Budapest Hotel. (2014). [film] Directed by W. Anderson. Indian Paintbrush.

The Royal Tenenbaums. (2001). [film] Directed by W. Anderson. American Empirical Pictures.

Fantastic Mr. Fox. (2009). [film] Directed by W. Anderson. American Empirical Pictures.