How does auteurist theory affect the way that films are analyzed by critics and audiences?
The essence of the auteur theory of film-making is that one person is central making an aesthetic and artistic statement, a personal work, sometimes even authored, directed, edited, by one person, even though most often there is a whole cinematographic team with which the auteur works (which is often a criticism leveled against auteur theory), thus the auteurist film is an artistic creation. This approach differs from the commercial film-making that is the norm in modern society. The criteria for review and analytical criticism, therefore, are different. The attraction to the potential audience of an auteurist film is not purely pleasure or fantasy, but rather aesthetic appreciation, enjoying the creativity of the product. When analytical critics address an auteur film, they are judging the worth of the auteur’s creativity, like a painting or sculpture. It is the difference between art and “commodity.” Any review is at base a recommendation to “consume” the film product, but a filmatic analysis of an auteur product is a close examination of its style and technique--including theme and camera presence--of its success at being a work of art and may include a concluding statement of its worth, of its value.