Talk:Auteur

Pretentious nonsense

Thus unsurprising that it comes from French so-called 'cinema theory'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.195 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You know what’s even more pretentious and nonsensical? Creating a section on a talk page to declare the topic pretentious and nonsensical. Ganondox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Quotes from Truffaut

There are several quotes from Truffaut (particularly under "Truffaut's development") that are said to be taken from "Une certaine tendance du cinéma français". I can't find either of these in the actual text and there are no references to follow...

Fundamental problem

A fundamental problem with this page -references to irony, which are in fact, not ironic, just coincidental etc. Someone with knowledge of film and semantics could tidy

Just a nit-pick; despite what the introduction says here, "auteurism" is a method of critical study, while the Auteur Theory is indeed an actual theory, namely (as the article goes on to explain) the theory that the director is (or should be, depending on one's interpretation) a film's primary author.

Astruc's 1948 essay ought to be mentioned here. The idea of the camera stylo is a rather obvious precursor to the auter. Deleuze 20:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind such a complete rewrite; it just happens that I was reading on this subject recently.

Add anything that's missing, but please keep the first sentence, which is from your original--it is THE best brief statement of the auteur position that I've ever seen.

---

I don't mind at all; I didn't write the original but merely moved it from Auteur Theory Film. I didn't know anything about Auteur theory one way or the other, as film theory tends to bore me. And I do think the article is much better as it is, apologies to the original author....

---

I just did a major rewrite of this article and included the Astruc, plus Bazin and a section on post-war cinema. I have removed the following section (next paragraph) which I find too close to personal opinon. I am also hesitant about the final paragraph in the article (which I have left). Also, the comparison between Renoir and Delannoy in the first paragraph should be explained (why?) or removed. User:NYArtsnWords Aug 13, 2005

"The strength of this theory (and the logical penchant for directors to support it) has been blamed for the irrational lack of attention some early directors received during the heyday of film theory. Howard Hawks was argued to be a hack because he had too many movies across too many genres. Allan Dwan still has not received much critical recognition both because too few of his films are in circulation and he made too many without contemporary attention."

I think this article has been vandalized. What is 'Noirgger Theory'? I'm pretty sure this is racist nonsense. Can someone please confirm. Thanks. ..........Yes, this is vandalism, and I believe it was 76.169.224.40. Could someone please fix this article?

On your first and fundamental point, you are completely wrong. Auteur theory does not posit that the director is the film's author, it doesn't have to do that because we are defined as such in law. It almost does the opposite, making a distinction between those that are and those that are not, implying that studio hired directors are just baby sitters for a collective that make a film together. Like most film theory, evidence is based on deconstruction of the finished product rather than scientific analysis of the whole process, which is difficult due to both it's complexity and the esoteric nature. Filmmaker2011 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Auteur_theory article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Auteur_theory}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article has no idea what the auteur theory was. The state " Howard Hawks was argued to be a hack because he had too many movies across too many genres." However, anyone with the slightest information on the theory would know Hawks was ranked as high as Hitchcock by the young Cahiers critics. Andre Bazin, thier mentor, jokingly called the Cahiers critics "Hitchcocko-Hawksians." One source for info: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001328/bio. Please fix this immediatly.

Proposed merge

I'm not sure a merge of Auteur and Auteur theory is the best idea - Auteur serves a purpose right now, giving a working definition and a list of directors that work with Auteur theory well. -Seth Mahoney 19:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

"a list of directors that work with Auteur theory well" - LMAO. The whole thing is pretentious nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.195 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. --Smell? 07:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternate views

Any critics of the Auteur theory out there want to add their 2 cents to this article? I read somewhere that Peter Bogdanovich films are often used as an example to debunk the theory since his early movies were masterpeices, and then everything he did after sucked amazingly. If the theory was true, he would have continued to make classics.

I think that's an absurdly simplistic view of auteur theory. But one criticism is that films by an auteur can be treated with reverence even when they suck (such as Kubrick's Fear and Desire. The Singing Badger 16:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Genre theory

I justed posted the sentence below to the auteur theory page but removed because I see that there has been a lot of writing on this page and I do not want to mess up your work.

In recent years, the auteur theory has been contrasted with genre theory.

I do not want to contradict the auteur theory (it brought us some wonderful movies), but it bothers me that the auteur theory never brings up 'genre' directors like David Cronenberg or Radley Metzger or Roger Corman.

The auteur theory is another instance of the cult of personality of the great man theory which tends to exclude the excellent work of some directors of escapist fiction. Do you think a link to genre studies deserves a mention in the article? --Jahsonic 16:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

These are all good points and should definitely be in the article. Why not create a new section called 'Problems with Auteur Theory' and put into it everything you've said above? Then other people can add to it. The Singing Badger 16:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, Singing Badger. The auteur theory has also had a hard time with "création collective" (cf the French theater director Ariane Mnouchkine) and collaborative styles of filmmaking that do not focus on one "author" -- styles of filmmaking that have been increasingly common in indepedent filmmaking since the 60s. Some of these issues should also be brought up in an article on the Hollywood studio system, and the question of whether a director or producer or screenwriter (or anyone) can translate their personal obsessions to the screen. NYArtsnWords 17:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have expanded my original comments and published them on User:Jahsonic#Notes_on_the_auteur_theory . As is, I believe the notes are too bold to feature on the main page, but feel free to use any part you would wish to include. --Jahsonic 11:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the above statement that autuer theory is an instance of cult of the personality, or that genre theory is at odds with it. Of course directors of escapist fiction can be autuers, there is no exclusions as such, It is interesting how AT polarizes people according often to their specific interests (see the criticism in perspective section), but in the end it was and is a system to identify the distinction of a film that has an authorial voice versus one that doesn't through the analysis of the canon's of well known directors. This is also an alternative answer to the 'what is it' question.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(Hollywood does not equal "studio system" per se)

In the above paragraph I had linked studio system to hollywood Hollywood|studio system. After comments from NYArtsnWords, I wrote this on NYArtsnWords's talk page. It is, I believe, of relevance here.

Yes, you are right, I was tempted to link it out of frustration that there is no article on the studio system (which I am sure, is a European phenomenon as well), thanks for removing the link. I thought it would be rather harmless because I posted it on a talk page. I find it interesting that quite a number of pages link to the studio system entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Studio_system , but that no one has written an article about it. The reason is perhaps that the studio system a number of negative connotations related to commercialism and Hollywood. There is however also a historical background, of which I do not know enough to write the entry. For the time being I have redirected studio system to Hollywood, because, if you check the "what links here page", it most commonly refers to Hollywood --Jahsonic 08:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge Auteur Theory

I believe that these two articles are discussing the same topic. Could someone who is knowledgable in the field please merge them? --M@rēino 04:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the merge (keeping a couple sentences) and redirect from Auteur Theory (created 2/12/06) to here.--NYArtsnWords 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Problems, OR, and irrelevancies in "Criticism"

I just did a clean-up of the Criticism section. I removed the whole paragraph about "psychoanalytical film criticism" because it was overly detailed, abstruse, and seemingly irrelevant. For one thing, I don't see how an emphasis on the "unconscious" of the director as contributing to the meaning of a film actually contradicts the auteur theory! Clconway (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what is it?

I'm sorry to sound totally ignorant, but I am on this subject, so there you go. After reading the article, I still didn't know what auteur theory really is. OK, in auteur theory, the director is the "author", at least in the case of directors who follow auteurism. (I think.) Based on this article, I couldn't say with confidence if a given director, say Ron Howard, is a follower of auteur theory. Likewise, I couldn't say if Roger Ebert is a critic who follows auteur theory. Some of the comments on the talk page were helpful. I think including contrasts to other theories, such as genre theory would be helpful. Also, a history of what preceded auteur theory would be helpful. Finally, why do we need auteur theory? I'm not asking about the article itself, but rather why did somebody think it was important to view movies this way? Lon of Oakdale (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The auteur theory states that the director is the primary author of the film; according to the theory, this is just the way it is, and a director doesn't have to be a "follower" of the theory for it to apply, just like whether we evolved from other forms of life is true or false regardless of whether one is a follower of the "theory of evolution." As for critics, to use your example, Ebert does follow the auteur theory; one can tell by reading his reviews and noticing his tendency to praise or criticize directors, while leaving screenwriters relatively undiscussed. As for why we "need" the auteur theory, we need the theory for the same reason we need any theory on art, cinema, or literature: it helps us better understand the medium. Hope that answers your questions. Minaker (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance of the theory

To answer some of the points here and as a justification for the section I added (criticism in perspective), Autuer theory is something that whilst being fairly marginal in terms of current academic interest (being seen mostly as part of a specific historical milieu within film ie part of the French New Wave) is relevant to anyone serious about producing quality film. To put it another way it is probably more relevant to filmmakers (directors) than a lot of what exists as 'audience' theory because it deals with the relationship of the process to the finished product. Other areas such as genre studies deal with the choices made and their perception by audiences rather than defining wherein lie the 'sources' of quality. A major issue with this article in my opinion is it's focus on the question of who is the author. Take for instance the work of Andrew Sarris which has only the briefest of mention in the article next to Pauline Kael (who's motivation as a writer was to catch peoples attention on the subject of specific films for mainstream newspaper articles, not to advance autuer theory through debate). Upshot is that to me this article is incomplete for something that is and always will be of importance, if only to filmmakers, and it should contain more information and examples about the 'signatures' of respected directors. I would be grateful for any assistance in improving (with examples) the section 'criticism in perspective' and would welcome a debate here upon this and other sections of the article. I intend to add more for instance on Andrew Sarris, without generally removing or changing anything within it's current form, which is factual but incomplete or not comprehensive enough in my opinion. --Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your "Criticism in Perspective" section is overwhelmingly your own opinion. You cite no references and the language and material would be better suited for an essay, not as part of an encyclopedic entry. I am, therefore, removing it. --Lindhorst (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I simply do not agree, there are plenty of citations available they just haven't been added yet. If the language is not appropriate then as I stated above others are welcome to change it. I made other changes which you have not found fit to just vanish. Statements like all the criticism in this article or those available anywhere are only from writers (with none from other important team members) is a fact. If you like we can seek arbitration from an administrator but I re-adding this section, and when I have time will add citations and clean it up. I spent a lot of time on the research for this, and have relevant qualifications. I can see no other edits from you in this or any other subject area Lindhorst and to label this vandalism calls into your judgement into question--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The question of authorial authority is a touchy one with writers who are over represented in theory about a practical art.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic is a standard of perfection of collections of data that is never reached (athough we strive for it). Where does it say that example is meaningless in wikipedia guidelines? Example in some cases is as good as citation which unless the citation is fully verified (how is that done by whom?) can be extremely misleading. There are things to be understood (there is plenty of evidence for problems with this see above) about AT that can only be done in analysis, and I felt that there were points that could be clarified using an analysis of critism (although I admit my bias is as clear as the writers but I didn't delete their opinion!). How then would you Lindhorst include the fact that films like 'In the mood for love' exist alongside the 'criticism' from writers that say a writer is the author of a film? Style notwithstanding, the content should stand.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I will rephrase my argument. The section "Criticism in Perspective" gives undue weight to the opinion that the criticism of AT is fundamentally flawed because said criticism comes only from writers. Until you provide legitimate sources that also express this opinion, it remains a viewpoint not suitable for inclusion in this article. A promise to provide sources later can hardly be seen as a reasonable excuse if you are as familiar with the material as you claim to be. You've used far more time in countering my argument than it would take to type in a source that you have researched. I do think seeking arbitration from an administrator would be appropriate as I do not think we will come to a satisfactory conclusion. You are right that I am new to Wikipedia and since you have offered to seek out arbitration, please do. As a show of good faith, I will leave the section untouched until such arbitration (as long as you seek arbitration within a reasonable amount of time; say, a month). --Lindhorst (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) 20:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I already sought advice and if you want you can read the reply on my talk page. You are not wrong about the rules as they apply to this part of my input to this article (enjoy the infinite telescoping amount of clean up work, or is your interest solely limited to this article?). However, AT is wholly misrepresented by populist critics like Kael. For this there is a mountain of citation, because it involves the well documented, self serving critic war in the press between kael an sarris (like the famous quote that kael talked down to her audience whereas sarris challenged them to raise to his level - he is a professor at columbia). My aim was to restrict myself to using the writers arguments to help clarify an esoteric subject which people are having problems with (see above) without giving further undeserved weight to this subject which is in my opinion by application of common sense (logic and experience) off topic. You would probably easily get support for your 'crusade', simply because it is much easier to rigidly apply rules than it is to add to (difficult) content. I'm sure many would agree that this is exactly where wikipedia is better than any encyclopedia, because it goes further, including a lot of original collations of information ('original research' yes) that are inherently biased in a myriad of ways by those collating. The ideals are just a kind of loose limit to strive for. There are other online encyclopedias that are written by a small number of admin, but these aren't as popular nor as comprehensive. You yourself were obviously motivated by a bias of interest, you seem to write very well :). Where is the debate of the points that I raised? The talk page isn't only for admin like application of rules. Exactly how is the content (not form) wrong in your opinion? I refer to a common knowledge (that was the point of the legal decision example that I removed because out of all the new points I raised that was the most obvious ie that the law didn't look to AT to make it's decision), a common knowledge between those to whom AT really applies ie directors. To everyone else this is esoteric. So look, you win, go ahead remove away and maybe I'll take the time to add some specific citable references to the nub of the writers 'hijack', but probably not because to me that would detract, confuse and mislead further the people coming to the page to seriously learn about AT. Without my addition the article is maybe O'level film studies level, all present and correct, but just make sure you unlearn what you were taught if you want to apply it in the real world.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So you don't have to go to my talk page and sift, here is the relevant part of the answer from the admin:

'The thing to do is always, as you have done, to begin by explaining why you disagree and also (where possible) addressing any legitimate concerns they may have. You should add sources as soon as possible; while Wikipedia:Verifiability encourages tagging content that is in dispute before removing it'

You should become a little more familiar with the protocol and atmosphere of the community before you start policing others hard work and good intentions. Your initial labeling of vandalism is wholly inappropriate (it shows in your history) and also displays a lack of balance in your approach, which ironically calls on guidelines whose sole purpose is as arbiter of balance. It is not I that looses out, I am not defending what I wrote out of egotism or stubbornness (I don't get a byline here), it is AT itself, wikipedia and those who can make use of a better understanding. Theories have no use unless they can be applied, if they are in doubt years after their formulation then they should be confined to minor a minor historical reference.--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that 2 through 10, all but 1 of the citations in this article are from the criticism section! Strike anyone else as being strange? It can be equated to scientific theories which are only applied by practitioners of the science. Scientists don't critique the theory for the sake of argument, they only go so far that it becomes useful in practice. I don't know any scientists that have even the slightest interest in the philosophy of science, and as such you won't find much written by them even though they would presumably be well placed to speak about it. You don't need to understand the theory of electricity to use it, nobody cares because it's abstracted. 'Unfortunately' with film because it is designed to be accessible to people, some tend to think they know rather more about it's processes than they actually do. Narrative is the key here, film has stolen the crown of narrative from the writer and they are not happy about it!--Filmmaker2011 (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, since someone else seriously toned down the section (and even mentioned that it could possibly be deleted altogether) and you have subsequently restored much of your original research, I am going to delete this section again. You said that you sought deliberation and that it was in your talk page. You provided the relevant "quote" from your page, but I visited your talk page and there is no discussion of this topic whatsoever, anywhere. Please do not take this personally. In fact, I do not entirely disagree with your views. No part of my actions has been based on taking a position for or against your views. However, the content is a clearly subjective attempt to criticize the critics of AT using an argument that has no sources (I've even looked for some and came up with nothing) and is a heavily biased opinion piece. One could easily write a response called "'Criticisim in Perspective' in Perspective", and provide an opinion on why you, personally, feel the need to need for such a section in the first place. You obviously have well thought out and passionate ideas on this subject. Write them in an essay and publish! Put it in the arena of peers; it certainly has the merit for it. It is just not at all in accordance with neutrality mission of Wikipedia. The entry, as it stands, leaves an open ended debate, which is the realm of published papers, not an online encyclopaedia. I will find an administrator or try to talk to the admin who watches this page. Again, please do not take my criticism of the entry as a criticism of the ideas, but merely it's placement within this context. --Lindhorst (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

i havent and wont have time to fully investigate this today, but I will point out that the argument "sources exist" is not sufficient. When challenged, as this content has been, the sources must actually be produced and supplied before content can be readded WP:BURDEN. Active Banana (^bananaphone 12:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

also, "common sense" when regarding any type of analysis or commentary is not allowed. see WP:OR. Active Banana (^bananaphone 12:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Filmmaker2011, please understand that no one is discouraging you from contributing to the encyclopedia. We need all the editors we can get and that anyone is interested in improving the material here is a good thing. Please don't be discouraged, or indeed, distracted from developing material for the article by the discussion here. This page exists for us to improve the article and to discuss editing practices, not the editors or the subject of the article. Neither do we want to overwhelm you with rules and procedures. Removing the section for the time being is the most appropriate course of action, but that in no way means that the material does not belong in the encyclopedia. The problem is that it doesn't provide citations from reliable, third-party sources, it appears to me also to not be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and looks like "original research". I know all those policies can seem a bit much when you begin. But this isn't the place for any of us to argue about our opinions. If someone else, in the kind of source we're talking about, has made the arguments that you're making, then great! We can include them and attribute them. If not, however important, valuable, or correct they may or may not be, they shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so the fact that something isn't in the article doesn't mean it shouldn't be, only that an interested editor hasn't yet included it with appropriate citations to substantiate the claims. It is interesting, and relevant, for example, if it is true that the director is universally regarded as the legal author of a film, with regards to copyright. But for that information to appear here, it needs a good citation. As someone has mentioned in an old talk page comment, genre theory is a major criticism and needs to be mentioned. That approach is not a proposal to prioritise the screenwriter over the director. It's not a version of New Criticism either. Nor do the practitioner/critic/academic/audience hierarchies hold water. The arguments about "where the quality" etc. lie are part of auteur theory and suffer just as much from its limitations, which apply equally to the director's work as to the audience's appreciation. It's not something that is organised along a theory/practice distinction. None of this is meant to discourage you, however! Only, rather, to indicate that it's a more complex subject.

We want your contributions! I recommend that you consider two options. The first is for you and Lindhorst to stop arguing and instead to try to collaborate! You are both interested in the subject of this article and your energies would be better spent improving it together. This could be done by creating a sub-page of this talk page, such as this one: Talk:Auteur theory/Criticism draft. There, you can place any material you like and begin to add citations for it. Lindhorst, if interested, could check that you're accurately representing those sources and add any material of his/her own too, again with citations. When you're both happy with the shape of the section, you could post a notice here and on the Wikiproject talk page and seek some outside opinions on whether it's ready to move into the main article. Hey presto, the article gets improved and everyone is happy. I appreciate that this might be a tricky process, but the final form of the material will be vastly better. The second option would be for you to create your own user page draft, such as this one: User:Filmmaker2011/Auteur. There, you could go through the same process but without collaborating until you reach the point that you feel it can be assessed by other editors. Then, post a link to it here and on the project page and have it confirmed that it's ready.

I hope that's useful. It's very common for our early contributions to the encyclopedia to be not quite what they should be--that was certainly the case for my own efforts. It's very tempting to promote our own opinions (and prejudices?). But those "pillars of wikipedia" are there for a reason, and I'm certain that my own ideas have improved considerably from the experience of trying to improve my editing practices to make them more like what they 'should' be. I, too, have wasted a lot of time discussing on a talk page when the better solution would have been to go to the sources and improve the article with them. Most articles here are incomplete, and they'll only get better from the efforts of editors like yourselves. So, happy editing!  • DP •  ^{huh?} 14:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lindhorst, you do not entirely disagree with my 'views' and you cannot find any criticisms from any of the other myriad departments of production (in information theory a lack of data in a defined set is information). You point out that nobody has had anything to say regarding the 'arguments', which includes you, there are glaring contradictions in what you have written. It seems that you are all a bit wrapped up in the authority of policing and no one wants to deal with the complexity of the subject itself. The only reason the section was awkward is because of the inherent and complex problem with the criticism section in the first place which is in a nutshell is a real theory vs claptrap. 'Schreiber theory' - do me a favour! where are the third party citations for the legitimacy of that? I would equate this with CERN vs end of the world conspirators - where is their section on the CERN page? Plenty of citation from 'reliable' sources). However, I notice that because of my illegal 'common sense' arguments (which contained at least one legitimate example of proof) the criticism section has been toned down (not torn down though), so I suppose my obviously biased efforts weren't completely wasted. The film and film making task forces are at the level of sunday paper review sections, if a little more comprehensive. I'd hoped to input on difficult and neglected areas of theory starting with AT. Whilst I appreciate the kind words of encouragement, unfortunately due to the lack of debate on anything other than the rules, I am out of place here as a content producer and will refrain from any further input ('editing') to wikipedia for the time being. --Filmmaker2011 (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Auteur Movement In Japan

It's been settled for quite some time now that there is currently a major movement in the Japanese gaming industry - where creators, renowned and revered for their craftsmanship and creative vision, have split away from the AAA behemoths that have funded them in the past in order to return to their roots and produce games that reflect their own personal artistry. This has been referred to the "Auteur Movement" in a few places now and it seems reasonable to include a section on this in the article. While it's not strictly film-related, the Auteur Movement appears to carry the same spirit as Auteur theory: the creative owner being in a directing-overseeing role, a rejection and revolt against the idea of a piece of media being nothing more than a commercial commodity, and well-known personalities imposing their will on a media and saturating it with their distinct character.

The most digestible description I can find of this would be from the Extra Credits video titled The New Future of Japan - The Auteur Movement, which can be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUWFH17Q3Aw

What do you guys think?

67.6.11.179 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Virtually anything can be added in this article as long as it's verified by a reliable source (WP:RS).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe ol' Shiggy isn't mentioned in this article. The article on him even references a 'The New Yorker' article that refers to him as an auteur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.151.173.219 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 27 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Auteur theory → AuteurismAuteurism – Opening sentence states "Auteur theory is a theory ... " which I found rather redundant. Then I thought: don't these sorts of topics usually end with "-ism"? Formalism, romanticism, eclecticism, structuralism, deconstructivism, the examples are endless... Searching "auteurism" shows that numerous books use the term, sometimes even in the title. Google Books also pulls up 500+ more results than if I searched "auteur theory". Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shigeru Miyamoto?

was just wondering why Shigeru Miyamoto was absent from the video game auteur list? when he definitely fits the definition, and is considered by many one of the fathers of modern gaming, and is also a much bigger name than some that do appear on the list, just seems weird that you've got the might and magic guy and Ragnar Tørnquist (who I've never even heard of or any of the games he's made either) but no Shigeru Miyamoto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.237.158 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

How is Tetsuya Nomura an auteur?

I'm sorry, but calling Nomura a videogame auteur while not mentioning Suda51 in the same category is just absurd. Not to mention, Nomura is credited here for the Final Fantasy series, but he has never directed a FF game. Even if he had, he's definitely not an auteur. He likes edgy anime tropes and puts belts and zippers all over his character designs, that's literally it. Did a Kingdom Hearts fan write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipitinsht (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed him since he lacked any sort of citation for the claim. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Video game auteurs list

Instead of cramming them all here, there should be a List of video game auteurs. I will create the article myself if I ever have the time to do it. ili (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Could you make a draft first and show us what it plans to look like? Because if all you are going to do is list more examples without expanding on each entry then I don't think this should be split. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say that there really should be a section mentioning how the theory applies to video games designers, especially if there is already a section for music producers. Ganondox (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability of auteurs in the lede

As there is the recent edit warring with this going on, I compiled the list of auteurs with as many reliable primary sources as possible. See User:Sddarealone/sandbox/NotableAuteurs

Also another point to be made is adding too many citations for each subject would cause citation overkill but still for sake of reliability I'm adding the references to not draw another dispute into the lede. Regards, Sddarealone (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Added all the references to the auteurs. You can make your points here on why and what should be removed from the list if you don't agree or else do not remove. It will be considered edit warring. Sddarealone (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The above list has been removed and replaced with a select few auteurs who have been described in the Auteur#Film section. For a full list of auteurs, see List of film auteurs. If there's any other filmmakers to add, try to cite more WP:RS secondary sources than primary sources to avoid WP:OR. Regards, Sddarealone (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Auteur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sddarealone (talk · contribs) 19:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ABehjat (talk · contribs) 23:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be the experienced reviewer to oversight the review process as part of the June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll review this article and will provide an update hopefully in the next few days - ABehjat (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat: Thanks for starting the WP:GAN review. I will be looking forward to any of the edit suggestions in accordance with preliminary findings and in WP:GACR6 that you might have. Cheers! Sddarealone (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for the nomination, Sddarealone. There's a good article in here — the theory sections (Origin, Development, Popularization, Criticism, Law, Popular music) are built on a reliable book spine and quality press, the tone is neutral, and the images are fine.

But after a full read I'm not listing this at GA, because the problems are extensive across three of the six criteria and go beyond what a seven-day hold can fix:

• The lead is built around a ~40-director list that the body never discusses, sourced to blogs/listicles, and assembled by the editor from "multiple lists" and "primary sources" (per the hidden note and the talk page): that's a WP:LEAD, WP:EMBED and original-research problem at once.
• The Video games section is a bare, unprosed name-list of ~17 developers with no connecting analysis, much of it on unreliable sourcing (1b / WP:EMBED / 3b).
• A major academic aspect (the genre-theory counter-position) is missing entirely (criterion 3a).

I think the article needs more than a week's worth of re-sourcing, restructuring, and consensus work. I'd encourage a renomination once the items below are addressed. More below...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Verifiability and sourcing (criterion 2) — fails 2c

2a is fine (proper Citations + General and cited references sections). The body's theory sections rest on a solid scholarly spine: Caughie, Sadoul, Kamina, Santas, Bloem — plus The Atlantic, New Yorker, NYT, The Guardian. No problem there.

But 2c fails, and not just on reliability — there's original research:

• Original research in the lead list. The ~40-director roster is an editor-assembled set: the hidden note reads Please do not remove this, I have checked multiple lists on many sites for this information, and on this talk page the nominator states they compiled the list of auteurs with as many reliable primary sources as possible. Determining who does or doesn't qualify as an "auteur" by aggregating multiple sources and primary sources is original research/WP:SYNTH. No single reliable secondary source presents "these are the auteurs."  Done; I have replaced the roster with the ones selected from film section.
• Failed verification. Several cites don't appear to support the auteur attribution they're attached to: the screenrant.com cite for Sergio Leone is a Clint Eastwood listicle; the faroutmagazine.co.uk cite for Tim Burton is about his "favourite creature feature"; the Tarantino cite is a "10 best characters, ranked" listicle. Citing an unrelated mention to support "X is an auteur" compounds the OR problem.  Done; I have cited reliable secondary sources (book review and journals) to support the auteur claims.
• Unreliable sources propping up the lists, several WP:RS/WP:RSP failures: indiefilmhustle.com (Nolan, Scorsese), filminquiry.com (S. Coppola), cinema-fanatic.com, a self-described "diary of a film history fanatic" blog (Luhrmann), movieweb.com (Tarantino), theculturetrip.com (RSP: generally unreliable; Jodorowsky), artofthemovies.co.uk — a movie-poster retailer's blog (P.T. Anderson), a College of DuPage undergraduate student essay at dc.cod.edu (the Coens); and in the video-game list a medium.com self-published post (five-plus names), screenrobot.com (the "Kojima ... first recognized auteur" claim), geek.com, digitallydownloaded.net.  Done; I'm sure by Nolan, Scorcese you were referring to Martin Scorsese. I changed the source for this director to a more WP:RS one; Also checked the video game sources and made appropriate corrections. digitallydownloaded.net is reliable as per WP:VG/RS.
• Weakly sourced body claims: Kael's central counter-argument is cited to filmmakeriq.com and a YouTube video essay (anchor it to Kael's "Raising Kane" / Sarris's "Perils of Pauline", already cited alongside); Adam Sandler's "producer auteur" status leans on a student film-society blog (bijou.uiowa.edu). Use the cited Dispatch piece instead.  Done

Two smaller 2b items (these alone would only be a hold): the body says Truffaut coined "la politique des auteurs" in the 1954 essay context but Popularization says it was "first used...in 1955". Please reconcile this; and the lead names Alexandre Astruc as an originator but he's never mentioned or sourced again in the body.  Done

Spotcheck / source verification

I had no source access during this pass. Source verification is the nominator's burden (WP:BURDEN); these are flagged for resolution rather than treated as reviewer to-dos, and the article does not turn on them given the criterion-1/2/3 failures above.

• Truffaut quotes from "Une certaine tendance du cinéma français" (cite certain tendency): the Development section attributes to this essay the "Cinema of Quality" critique, the metteur en scène "stager" line, and the eight named writer-directors. This has been questioned on the talk page for years and never resolved. Please open a dedicated talk section so it carries forward to any future nomination. Per WP:BURDEN, please supply a precise citation (or a reliable translation) confirming the wording.  Done; I added the precise quotes from the citation that supports the first few sentences in that section and also in last sentence, the list of directors named as auteur by Truffaut.
• Worth confirming when the lists are re-sourced: Bresson/Tati on that same newwavefilm.com page; Bay/Vox ("subversive...auteur" + verbatim phrases); Britannica (French origin + Sarris 1962, and the Astruc attribution); and the offline book quotes (Bloem p.97; Harmetz p.29; Godard/Lewis, Hillier p.295).  Done; All check. Also note that Sarris had coined the term "Auteur theory" in "Notes on the Auteur theory in 1962" piece in the 1962 edition of the quarterly magazine, Film Culture. It's already added as a citation.

Copyvio / close paraphrasing

• Earwig returns "violation unlikely" (top match around 30%); the highest hits are the quote-dense Bay/Vox and Pet Sounds/Atlantic passages, where the borrowed wording is properly quoted and attributed. No close-paraphrasing or copyvio concern. ✓

Structure, prose and coverage (criteria 1 & 3) - fails 1b, 3a, 3b

• The lead fails WP:LEAD and WP:EMBED (1b). Its third paragraph is one ~40-name run-on sentence with a citation after almost every director, and almost none of those directors are discussed anywhere in the body. A lead must summarize the body; this is a free-standing roster instead. Fix: remove the roster (it overlaps List of film auteurs); keep at most a few canonical, body-discussed examples; and add 2–3 sentences actually summarizing the Popular music and Video games sections (Spector, Wilson/Pet Sounds, Kojima/Miyamoto), which the current lead reduces to one clause.  Done
• The Video games section fails WP:LAYOUT/WP:EMBED (1b, 3b). 17 developers grouped together into one unprosed sentence with no connecting analysis. Prose-ify / trim to a few well-explained examples (as Popular music does well).  Done
• 3a - a major aspect is missing. The genre-theory critique, the principal academic counter-position to auteur theory in film studies, and one repeatedly raised on the talk page, is absent. A sourced sentence or two in Criticism is the minimum.  Done
• 3b - undue detail. The lead roster and the video-game name-list are both example-dumps that overweight "list of practitioners" against the theory itself.  Done; replaced both the list with links at section top which redirects to list articles.

Smaller prose/spelling fixes (would only be a hold on their own): missing comma between names for Japanese Auteurs - e.g. Katamari Damacy and Yuji Horii; display-name diacritics like Agnès.  Done; checked for WP:MOS.

Neutral (criterion 4) — pass

No problem. The authorship debate is balanced and attributed: Sarris/auteurists against Kael, Corliss/Kipen, Sadoul, and Harmetz, and the old 2011 unsourced "Criticism in Perspective" essay is gone from the current text.

Stable (criterion 5) — unresolved / aggravating

The talk thread "Notability of auteurs in the lede" (14 May 2026) refers to "recent edit warring" over the lede list, and the nominator's note - do not remove. It will be considered edit warring - reads more like an ownership warning (WP:OWN) than a consensus. On the static record I can't confirm whether reverting is currently active, so I'm not failing solely on 5 - but it's a real concern and, combined with the OR sourcing of that same list, it's part of why this needs to settle before a renomination. (If the live history shows an active war, 5 is an independent fail.)  Done; I have updated that thread with a new reply stating that the older list has been changed to include only a few select auteurs from the body.

Images (criterion 6) — pass

All three images are relevant, captioned, and freely licensed: Hitchcock (PD-US-not-renewed), Truffaut (Anefo / Nationaal Archief open-data release), and Spector (PD-US-no-notice, Billboard 1965). Each depicts a figure explicitly discussed and sits beside the relevant text.

Result

Not listed. This is not a reflection of the effort already invested. The theoretical core is good, but criteria 1b, 2c and 3a fail on the article as written, and the lede list raises an original-research problem that needs re-sourcing from secondary analysis plus talk-page consensus.

To get this to GA and renominate:

1. Rebuild the lead so it summarizes the body; remove the ~40-director roster (point readers to List of film auteurs); keep only a few body-discussed examples.
2. Resolve the OR: don't assemble an auteur list from primary sources / "multiple lists" — cite secondary sources that themselves call each person an auteur, and drop names that can't be supported.
3. Replace the blog/listicle/student-essay citations in both lists and for the Kael and Sandler claims with reliable sources.
4. Prose-ify or trim the Video games section into a few well-explained examples.
5. Add the genre-theory counter-position (3a).
6. Reconcile the 1954/1955 date; source or develop the Astruc mention.
7. Fix the small prose items (comma; Agnès/von/del).

Renominate as soon as these are addressed, and feel free to ping here for any questions.

ABehjat (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat: That is a rigorous work of the issues you have deduced so far from a full read of my WP:GAN and I appreciate it. The only point that left me stuck was that I wanted to make the article ready according to the current nom but you're requesting for a re-nom and kept the current one on hold.

I have understood all the issues so far and I'm fairly confident that I can tackle them but before getting started, I wanted more clarity on the ambiguity of nom / re-nom situation. Thanks. Sddarealone (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

ABehjat, I agree you should clarify what you mean by re-nominating. I don't think the article should be failed yet, I think it should be put on hold. I think the nominator deserves a chance to fix these in a timely manner. However, if you think these are significant issues after or that the issues can't be resolved in a timely manner, it would support your rationale for failing this review. Up to you, and it also depends on if Sddarealone would support renominating it in another nomination, or addressing the issues in this one. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch: Thanks for overseeing my WP:GAN. According to me, I think except for criteria 3a, all the others can be resolved quickly enough within a week's threshold as seen by the reviewer. In fact, one of my successful GAN's took 4 days to complete despite the great no. of issues raised in the review. Hence I'm confident I can tackle the same in this nomination fairly quickly enough without having to re-nom. Sddarealone (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Great. I suggest ABehjat allowing some time to Sddarealone to fix the issues. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good and thank you Alex for the guidance!

Please proceed to make the updates and changes based on the feedback and ping me when they're complete and I'll re-review the article.

Would 14 days be sufficient for updates/review, starting from today? ABehjat (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It's usually seven days, and the nominator said they can respond to the comments fairly quickly. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat: I have completed solving all the issues raised under the criterias (2, 3 and 5) and would like a further review to complete the GAN. Best regards, Sddarealone (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough turnaround, @Sddarealone. I've re-read the article against the first-round findings, and the substance is essentially there now:

• 2c (original research + reliability) - resolved. The editor-assembled roster is gone, the failed-verification listicles and unreliable blogs with it, and each remaining named auteur rests on a secondary source that actually calls them one. Y
• 3a (major aspect) - resolved. The new Genre theory subsection supplies the academic counter-position with solid sourcing (Petrie in Film Quarterly, Langford, Chandler), and it's summarised in the lead. Y
• 1b / 3b (Video games) - resolved. Now prose built around a few well-explained examples rather than a name-list, with the roster pointed to List of video game auteurs. Y
• 2b - resolved. The 1954 (essay) vs 1955 (la politique des auteurs) distinction reads consistently, Astruc is developed in Origin, and you've supplied the verbatim Truffaut quotation that settles the long-standing verification concern. Y
• 5 (stability) - settled. No reverting since, and the lede dispute is resolved by the rewrite. Y

That clears everything the first round turned on. I'm keeping it on hold for one more short round rather than listing today, because rebuilding the lead has swung it the other way:

1b - the lead now runs long for LEADLENGTH. It's grown to seven paragraphs of detailed, citation-heavy prose: the full Lady Vanishes MacGuffin quote, the Godard-on-Lewis quote, the Bay and Sandler paragraphs. Much of this are duplicates from the body. Lead should be roughly 3-4 paragraphs that summarizes the primary points in the body. Could you condense it and keep the definition, the origin/Sarris history, the critique (including genre theory), and a sentence or two each on the film / music / games examples, and let the detailed quotations live in the body?  Done; Kept the lead now 4 paragraphs only.

1a - a few small fixes (feel free to just make these):

• One such well-known genre filmmakers is David Cronenberg → "filmmaker is".  Done
• Broken italics in Genre theory: cahiers du cinéma → Cahiers du cinéma.  Done
• Alexander Astruc (Origin) vs Alexandre Astruc (lead) — standardise on "Alexandre".  Done
• his directorial style as an auteur is such easily noticeable that → "is so easily noticeable that".  Done
• Thus the theory aims to break the glorification of critically acclaimed directors reads as an unattributed conclusion - attribute it to the cited scholarship or trim it.  Done; I modified the sentence according to RS.

Condense the lead and tidy those and we'll be ready to pass it. Ping me when done, and thanks again for your time and effort!

ABehjat (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat: I completed the last few fixes for the issues that you raised above. As you said, it seems the article should now be ready to pass as GA, should you not find any other issues with it. Also I'm glad you took notice of my efforts. I sped up the editing in 2 days as I find it more convenient to keep track of my edits in a shorter period of time. Sddarealone (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat: Re-pinging you to know the GAN result as I have finished clearing all the issues in the article few days back. Sddarealone (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

=== Third-round review — source spot-check complete; short hold for a few sourcing fixes ===

Thanks @Sddarealone. the lead is now a tidy four paragraphs and the 1a fixes are all in, so the writing and structure are where they need to be. Before listing, I completed the source spot-check that criterion 2 calls for (I'd earlier flagged verification as something to hand back to you, but I should've also done a check. So I've now done one across a ~10% sample of the web cites and the offline books). Most of it holds up well:

• Truffaut / "A Certain Tendency" — the long-standing quote concern is resolved. Everything the Development section attributes to the essay (the "process of equivalence"; "when they hand in their script, the film has already been made"; the eight-name auteur list; "by a curious coincidence … auteurs"; "failed when they tried their hand at comedy") is in the cited text verbatim. Y
• Michael Bay / Vox — all quoted phrases verbatim, and the source explicitly calls him an auteur. Y
• Harmetz p. 29 — "collapses against the reality of the studio system" checks out. Y
• digitallydownloaded.net — I see you've already removed it. Y

A few sourcing items do need fixing before I can list — none large:

1. The Kojima "first auteur" claim still rests on an unreliable source. "The first well-known game auteur" (lead and Video games) is still cited to screenrobot.com, one of the sources I flagged as unreliable in round one. Two reliable sources call him an auteur but not the first: the Sydney Morning Herald ("Japan's pre-eminent auteur game designer") and Axios ("Gaming auteur Hideo Kojima"). Could you replace screenrobot.com with those and change "first" to "pre-eminent"? (Or keep "first" only as attributed opinion via the Mancunion line, which itself hedges it as "often dubbed".) As written, "first" isn't supported by a reliable source.  Done; I added The Sydney Morning Herald, and also kept the auteur claim only supported by mancunion (in body) and Herald in lede.

2. Bloem (p. 97) — please reconcile the paraphrase with the source. The quotations are accurate, but on that page Bloem's "motion picture poet" is exemplified by screenwriters (Carl Mayer, who wrote Caligari; Hans Kräly), and his point is that these writer-"poets" go unrecognised while fame goes to the producer. The article maps "poet/artist" onto the director, which this page doesn't quite support. Could you either cite Thompson & Bordwell (already in that paragraph) if they treat Bloem as a director-as-artist theorist, or soften the sentence to match the page?  Done; I simplified the context by keeping the producer as the main focus of Bloem who wanted the audience to see the contributions of screenwriters in cinema. Also I corrected the timeline to show the rising influence of film directors in the 1940s.

3. Kamina — the "influence of auteur theory" clause isn't supported. The EU-law point that the director is "considered the film's author or one of its authors" is accurate (that's the Term Directive). But "largely by influence of auteur theory" conflates droit d'auteur — the general authors'-rights doctrine, which predates and is unrelated to film auteur theory — with the film concept; the cited passage is about droit d'auteur and even notes that French law historically leaned toward the producer as author. Could you drop that clause (or attribute it only if Kamina explicitly says it)? Also, the cite reads "p. 153" but the relevant text is at paragraph 135 — worth confirming the locator.  Done; included the right text from Kamina's source; and yes it lies in p. 135. Additionally, I added the Luxembourg exception to the law which is on p. 160.

4. A quick self-check on the remaining book cites. Two of the paraphrases above (Bloem, Kamina) lean a little further toward "the director / auteur theory" than the sources say. Since I only sampled, could you give the other book-supported claims (Santas p. 18, Eisenberg p. 103, Butler p. 225, Bannister p. 38) a second read against their pages to make sure the wording matches? Just being thorough.  Done Bannister check, Butler check, Eisenberg check (The first auteur among producers was Phil Spector, a singer and song writer who moved into production in mid career (at the age of twenty)), but I couldn't find an online copy of Santas' book which is unfortunate as it's the first reference in the article. Santas check

In addition, can you trim a couple of overlinked names (Truffaut, Hitchcock and Kojima are each linked several times).  Done

Optional, not required: Cath Davies's Approaches to Pop Music (Auteur Publishing, 2008, p. 7) would give the Popular music section a one-sentence scholarly framing for why film auteur theory transfers to music, if you'd like to add it. It's available via Internet Archives.  Done

Please address the items above and I'll be happy to review again.

Ping me when done, and thanks again for the steady work here.

ABehjat (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@ABehjat: All the above issues sorted including the optional suggestion. Kindly check. Sddarealone (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sddarealone. I've checked the latest round against the live article and everything from the third-round list is resolved:

• Kojima "first auteur" — the unreliable screenrobot.com cite is gone; the lead now reads "Japan's pre-eminent auteur game designer" cited to the Sydney Morning Herald, and "first" survives only as attributed opinion via the Mancunion line. Y
• Bloem (p. 97) — the paraphrase now correctly gives the "artist/poet" role to the screenwriter, with the producer as the figure Bloem critiques, which matches the page; the 1940s timeline reads right too. Y
• Kamina — the "influence of auteur theory" clause is removed, the Term Directive is a cleanly attributed blockquote, the locator is corrected, and the Luxembourg exception is a good addition. Y
• Remaining book cites — Eisenberg now carries the verbatim Spector quote, Santas has an archive link, and Bannister and Butler check out. Y
• Overlinking — trimmed, and the optional Cath Davies framing in Popular music is a welcome addition. Y

Stability is settled as well: the only recent non-nominator edit was an unsourced addition you reverted on WP:V/WP:NOR grounds, which was exactly right.

That clears the last of the sourcing items. The article now meets all six criteria in my opinion — it's well written, verifiable with a completed source spot-check, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and well illustrated. Congratulations, and thank you for the steady, thorough work throughout this review.

@Alexeyevitch, just need your final check and I can proceed with the pass.

ABehjat (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Just checked the review again and it's been properly reviewed against the six criteria. You may pass the review now. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italics?

The word "auteur" is in italics in the title and caption, but not anywhere else in the article? Gert7 (talk · contribs) 12:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:EMPHASIS, italics are not to be repeated more than once (or needed) as it's less helpful to the readers. Sddarealone (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)