hey there dan,
with all respect, the authorship theory was not just thought up to piss people off. I find it quite funny that the work being discussed in terms of authorship for many years, such as Welles, Renoir, Hitchcock, Ford and many others, are now being described by yourself as a maccy d's meal. I do think however that the theory is a bit outdated (seeing as the theory was proposed in the 1950s and developed throughout the 1960s but the ideas haven't really moved on since then.) So what is the relevance of the theory now?
A director whose creative imprint on a film is strongly felt can be considered an auteur. So when you watch the film you know immediately through the style who directed it etc. So I thought, well surely Alekan could be considered for this theory? Assuming of course every composition we see on screen is from his own creative vision.
The work of an auteur should be as recognisable as the creator of any other work of art, a Van gogh painting, or a Beethoven symphony etc, they have certain stylistic recourances that make the work distinctively their own.
So, up for a happy meal anyone? maybe the free toy this week will be a mona lisa in every box.
(sorry, Dan)
xx