While posting is, at heart, a collaborative medium, posting is primarily the artistic output of a single unifying creative with an overarching vision. This “auteur”, as it were, is not the poster themselves but rather Orson Welles

The Auteur as a figure in entertainment is dead. Grown strong on digital production, a more artistically bankrupt creature emerges in their place. It is the Executive Auteur, and it's coming soon to a theater near you, whether you like it or not.

If you've noticed all manner of artists increasingly taking a back seat in the discourse to studios and franchises, if you're weirded out by how much more valued a corporation's vision seems to be than the interchangeable drones tasked with realizing that vision, this article is for you.

I'm reading up on the actual history of auteur theory and some of the debates in the early 60s about it, and it's almost completely incomprehensible from a modern perspective. I don't know how much of this will make it in cause it's sort of a tangent but like... you've got Pauline Kael, a posting queen if there ever was one, just unleashing this barrage of invective against Auteur Theory as... commercial and anti-art because it's incapable of recognizing the talents of writer-directors working on personally motivated projects. it's genuinely bewildering and only makes sense when you put it in the context of the then-sclerotic French film industry, so her debates with American and British auteur theorists are ALREADY removed from their original context.

all of which is gonna pose a real problem for me, since I'm trying to engage with people using a definition of "auteur" which seems to mean "any director or creative generally we're mad at for saying marvel films are a bit crap"