What are some arguments against Auteur Theory in film-making?

Auteur Theory, emerging in the 1940s with the French New Wave movement amongst film critics and first largely introduced by Alexander Astruc (with Andre Bazin) and propounded in the 1950s periodical Cahiers du cinéma, centers on the concepts of "director-as-author" and "caméra-stylo" (camera-as-pen).

The theory holds that, just as a fiction author or a painter or sculptor has a persona, a style, a recognizable presence or voice, so has a director a recognizable persona that manifests in tension, shot style (e.g., reflection shots), thematic consistencies, perceptible world vision and other modes of persona projections that leave a traceable mark or signature upon the films that an individual filmmaker creates. Classic examples of auteur directors who are authors of their films and who use the camera-as-pen are Alfred Hitchcock and Charlie Chaplin. Modern directors who have earned the label auteur are, among others, Ron Howard and the brothers Ethan and Joel Coen. Their works, along with other past and present directors' works, display the personality behind the mind behind the film and exhibit a unique mark or signature.

Current opposition to the theory is embedded in the changes that have taken place in filmmaking since the early filmmaking years of the 1940s and 1950s. The objection says that filmmaking is such an intense effort in current times with so many gifted and exceptional specialists needed to oversee and perform every individual aspect of a film that it is no longer practicable to identify one single person as someone who imprints an identity upon a film and leaves such a strong mark that it amounts to a recognizable voice, signature, style or presence.

Well there is a foundational truth to this observation, two things tend to limit its applicability to the power a director does or does not have. One is the films themselves like Chariots of Fire and Oh Brother Where Art Thou and The Da Vinci Code that are produced today and the other is the persistence of the Academy Awards in acknowledging distinctive directors for leaving profound imprints on their films.

What are some arguments against Auteur Theory in film-making?

There are very few directors who are qualified to be the originators of films. Names that come to mind are Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen, and Ingmar Bergman. John Huston once said that the three most important ingredients of a movie are story, story, and story. Huston had been a screenwriter and thus was able to turn out good adaptations on paper or to improve existing scripts on which to base his films. Alfred Hitchcock knew the importance of a good story and a good script. He went through hundreds of submissions before picking one project, and as far as I know he never did the writing himself.

A director is called a réalisateur in French. The word suggests that the director is supposed to take something that has been written and "realize" or "actualize" it in the cinematic medium.

Orson Welles was an auteur. His best film was indusputibly Citizen Kane. And that was because he had a wonderful screenplay written mainly by Herman Mankiewicz. Welles never produced anything comparable for the rest of his life. Most of his films are being forgotten.

What are some arguments against Auteur Theory in film-making?

One major argument against auteur theory is that the director is not always the writer of the film. While the director is responsible for determining all visual and audio parts of film-making, it may be less so in the digital age, where very small film crews can produce a feature film, with creative input is necessarily limited to a few people.

Another argument is that to focus on the director is to not only ignore the other aspects of filmmaking, but to trivialize them in favor of one dominating position, since the work of the director informs the work of the crew. Without a good cinematographer with a good understanding of light and focus, the film will be dark or washed out or blurry. The input of the film crew members facilitates the director's decisions.

Yet another argument is that to examine a film as if it were the sole product of the director is to place all praise and responsibility for filmatic choices, good and bad, on the director's shoulders. Producers often try to place blame on the director if the film does poorly.

Much in the same way peple have favorite authors who create certain expectations from their writing, we have the auteurist theory in film. While the theory has become important in film analysis, what are arguments against auteurist theory?

The original question had to be edited.  I would suggest that resubmitting the additional questions could be very beneficial.  I would say that one of the strongest arguments against the auteur theory is that it denies the idea that there are other forces in constructing cinema.  Simply put, when Truffaut says that "There are only good and bad directors," it fails to integrate the number of people involved in making a film.  Their contributions could be seen as just as important as the director's.  

Even if one made the assumption that certain individuals' talents always follow the same director (Thelma Schoonmaker- Martin Scorsese, John Williams- Steven Spielberg, Edith Head- Alfred Hitchcock, Gordon Willis- Woody Allen), it denies how important these individuals are to the construction of the cinema.  The director's vision is essential in any film, but the autere theory seems to place this vision as in higher status than other elements.  For example, if I had a great scriptwriter, editor, cinematographer, as well as production designer, costume designer, music composer, and actors, I could probably make a great film and I have no vision as a director. My point is that the autere theory seems to reduce these roles in place of a director's focus.  I would question the complete validity of this.

Another element that has to be raised is that the premise of making films and securing financing for films is changing.  The autere theory fails to take into account that financial motivation is becoming more dominant now than ever before in the flimmaking industry.  At the time of the autere theory, studios were able to "write off" films for being "artsy" and that was acceptable loss for them financially.  This is not the case now, where studios are becoming more driven in terms of generating profit domestically and internationally.  There is much to be gained from another "Transformers" or another "Iron Man" installment than a film about emotional insecurity between a married couple experiencing existential crises.  Autere film directors are having to make some harsh choices that might not have presented themselves in such a stark manner for artists in the past. This raises some level of question to the autere theory.  It might not be about "good directors and bad directors," as much as it might be about "bad studios and worse studios."