MovieChat Forums > David Fincher Discussion > is it really fair to call him an auteur?

is it really fair to call him an auteur?

posted 4 years ago by filmgeek99 (592)
3 replies | jump to latest

Despite Fincher's reputation as one of the best directors working in Hollywood today, I never saw him as anything more than a technical craftsman. To me, he's more comparable to the likes of Ridley Scott and Alan Parker, as opposed to real auteurs like Hitchcock or Kubrick. Let me explain...

David Fincher is a phenomenally gifted director, no doubt about it. His eye for framing, composition, editing, pacing, performances, VFX, and overall cinematic verisimilitude is one of the best out there for sure. However, beneath all that, is there really anything Fincher brings to the table as far as themes or ideas are concerned? From what I can tell, not really.

Fincher's emphasis as a filmmaker mainly seems to lie in the realm of technical presentation. His main focus seems to mainly just be making the most technically well-crafted film possible. In terms of themes and ideas however, Fincher seems to mainly leave that up for the writers to decide. He doesn't seem to be the kind of director particularly interested in making films to express his personal views and thoughts on the world. Rather, he makes films to bring other people's ideas to life as best he can. That isn't to say he has absolutely no input on the scripts he picks, but from what I can tell, he mainly does is what is usually expected of a typical Hollywood director-for-hire in that department. Fincher simply reads the scripts that have been given to him, then works with the writer to smooth things out in regards to things like cinematic structure and pacing, only to then go on to make the most technically proficient film he can while not veering off much from the script he and the writer worked out together. That's it.

The way Fincher approaches filmmaking, seems much more in line with a classic Hollywood technical craftsman (William Wyler, Robert Wise, Sidney Lumet etc.) than a full-blown auteur like Kubrick, Hitchcock, or Kurosawa. He's similar, in that he makes movies based around other people's pre-existing ideas while adding his trademark technical prowess to the mix. Some may argue that his distinct visual style and meticulous way of directing is enough to call him an auteur, to which I have this to say.

Fincher is like a really tough, demanding manager working at a restaurant of which he does not own. He works really hard, demands the most of all his staff, and won't tolerate any sloppiness whatsoever on the dining room floor. However, he's still technically working for a boss, who ultimately has the final say on how the restaurant should be run. He may discuss his boss' plans first before putting them into motion, but at the end of the day, he isn't the one responsible for all the decisions that go into running said restaurant.

That's the best analogy I can come up in regards to where Fincher stands as a filmmaker. He's certainly one of Hollywood's better directors working right now, but to say he is an auteur, I feel is just inaccurate. Fincher is more like an extremely gifted technical craftsman who makes movies based around ideas others hand to him, rather than a full-blown artist making movies straight out of his heart and soul. The likes of Tarantino, the Coens, Nolan, PTA, Anderson, and Del Toro are much better examples of the modern day auteur.

Who's with me?

[–] MavKilledGoose (779) 3 years ago

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a fan of "auteur" theory in general. Film is collaborative, so it's kind of silly when someone claims authorship. That said, if anyone should claim authorship, then it's a writer-director, especially for an original work (as opposed to an adaptation). As noted, Fincher brings his own distinct visual style, but that's not enough.

A British writer made an interesting comparison back in the 80s when Newton's *Principia* was slated to celebrate its 300th anniversary. It's a monumental work, but he said that if he had to choose between *Principia* and any landmark work of fiction, then the former would have to go. Someone surely would have eventually discovered the inverse square-law (and did). The same goes for other scientific works, where there's a convergence on truth (someone other than Darwin would have discovered the theory of natural selection (and did)). Fincher's craftsmanship is far ahead of most others in the industry, but movies are constantly improving in terms of production values. Movies like Zodiac and Fight Club could have existed if Fincher had never been born; but they wouldn't exist without their authors.

[–] [deleted] 8 months ago

I wouldn't call him an 'auteur'.

For me an 'auteur' is someone who has a common 'feeling' to almost all their movies, they have a specific style. People like Wes Anderson, Rob Zombie, Quentin Tarantino. You see a movie by them and you're like "yup that was a Rob Zombie movie".

That isn't to say being an 'auteur' is superior. For example someone like Ridley Scott isn't an 'auteur' but for me he's one of the best directors of all time.

[–] Melton (2211) 6 months ago

I’ve come to respect Fincher more and more over the years and at this point I probably would call him an auteur.

‘Auteur’ is a messy concept if you’re not talking about a writer-director like Cronenberg. Spielberg has tried pretty much every genre under the sun and yet people would call him an auteur, his incredibly fluid blocking and camera movement stand out, and he gravitates to certain themes.

At this point I’d say Fincher does too. I could probably tell a Fincher film by just watching 15 minutes. His compositions are meticulous, sharp, contrasty, stable, cold.

Tonally (which is where we really identify an auteur) he’s also very cold, with an obsession with the macabre. Serial killers are a focus because he’s fascinated by evil and all those things out to get you. There’s also an unmistakable intelligence to his projects. It’s like he’s frozen in the ‘brainy adolescent contemplating suicide’ phase.

I’ve become a big fan of his, I always know I’ll get a smart, thoughtful, nasty, cold, incredible looking film from Fincher, with universally great performances. I’ve had a peek into the blackness, but I’m warm and safe because Fincher identified a new predator and came back to tell the tribe. That’s the feeling that the auteur, Fincher, gives me.