#MeToo: The culture that enabled men to abuse women must be cast out, but the work can live on

The movement against sexual harassment in Hollywood is causing serious damage to the Auteur Theory.

The Auteur Theory, which has held the film industry and film criticism in its grip since the 1950s, has recently come under attack from film critics – until now its greatest champions. The problem they face is that many of the directors deified as auteurs have been caught up in the #MeToo movement’s sweep of the film industry.

Film critic Ryan Gilbey writes of the atrocities wrought by the Auteur Theory and asks what happens when a God-like director turns out to be a liability. He ends his piece with the line:

Direction is no longer a means of illustrating or presenting a scene, but a true act of writing. The film-maker/author writes with his camera as a writer writes with his pen.

Time may be up, but #MeToo is not a critically sound basis for renouncing the Auteur Theory. Its faults need greater scrutiny. The foundation stone for the theory can be found in one paragraph from a thoughtful 1948 essay by the film-maker Alexandre Astruc, in which he sought to identify a new age of cinema: the age of the camera-stylo (camera-pen):

“Direction is no longer a means of illustrating or presenting a scene, but a true act of writing. The film-maker/author writes with his camera as a writer writes with his pen.”

Alexandre Astruc. Credit: Wikipedia/DutchNationalArchives.
Alexandre Astruc. Credit: Wikipedia/DutchNationalArchives.

Astruc considered the future of cinema to be dependent upon there being a single creator (a scriptwriter who directs his own scripts – like Woody Allen). After all, as he says: “Could one imagine a Faulkner novel written by someone other than Faulkner?” His aim was to push cinema towards being taken seriously as an art form, rather than remaining “a fairground attraction”. Yet it was the line: “the film maker/author writes with his camera as a writer writes with his pen” that launched the Auteur Thoery and the cult of the director.

Astruc’s argument was twisted but his aim was achieved: cinema could now be considered an art form, with a single creative mind in control – the director. This led eventually to the use of the notorious possessory credit which states that the film is “by” the director, regardless of who wrote the screenplay. This happens even when the screenplay is an original idea, written before a director is attached to the project.

Woody Allen’s Annie Hall (1977).

The Auteur Theory became a tyranny, McCarthyite in its single-mindedness. Horribly, lists of auteur directors were drawn up, notably by American film critic Andrew Sarris. Those whose names were not on the list had been judged by critical opinion to be lesser directors. John Huston, for example, never made the list. His extraordinary number of great films failed to display the kind of mono-style that marked out the true auteur, aiming instead for a style appropriate to the literary source.

Yet the fact remains that over the decades it held sway, the focus on the director meant that many artists working in film flourished and produced masterpieces. Among the discredited auteurs cited by Gilbey are Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, whose names would feature in most critics’ lists of the greatest geniuses of cinema – along with Chaplin, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Welles. It is through their innovations that film achieved its modern ability to rival the novel in depth and subtlety.

Art and ethics

But if cinema is an art form, then why treat it differently from the other arts? Conversely, why not include the other arts in the clean-up and stop revering the paintings of Picasso, Gauguin or Degas? Or stop reading the works of Lewis Carroll or Vladimir Nabokov, just in case? Let us not look at anything made by anybody who is, in Margaret Atwood’s phrase, “guilty by allegation” (like Woody Allen).

Reviewing Allen’s latest film Wonder Wheel in The Times, Kevin Maher found it necessary to ditch discussion of the film’s director altogether, only mentioning Allen in the final sentence:

The film was written and directed by Woody Allen. In 1993 he was accused of molesting his adopted daughter … He denied the accusations and was never prosecuted. Should you go and see it? Over to you.

And what of Roman Polanski, who actually admitted a statutory rape charge in 1977? If Allen’s films are suspect, Polanski’s must be even more so. It does not for one moment excuse his crime to insist that his work in cinema has taught and inspired generations of film makers, with some of his films even claimed by young feminists. Must we now avert our eyes?

Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974).

Charlie Chaplin, possibly the greatest auteur the world has known, made all his films before the Auteur Theory existed. Chaplin wrote, directed, starred in and composed the music for his movies. His stature as an artist is arguably on a level with Picasso. Of Picasso, the novelist Caroline Blackwood – speaking from personal experience – said: “He was an old letch, genius or no”. Perhaps something similar could be said of Chaplin.

The artistic drive and the sex drive have always been closely linked. The adoration of the human form, the fascination with the object of desire, driving the creation of works of art, or simply driving the artist. Tracey Emin’s work is as sexually driven as Hitchcock’s, or as her hero, Egon Schiele’s. To deny this, to attempt to outlaw it, is an act of cultural suicide.

There is no doubt that a line – first drawn by the early feminists – has been underscored by #MeToo. The attitudes that once enabled male artists to exploit and abuse women with impunity must be cast into the past. But leave the work alone, with its cultural life living on beyond its creators. And as far as cinema is concerned, simply calling time on the already waning Auteur Theory does not accomplish anything at all. It’s perhaps time for a new theory.

Margaret Leclere, Senior Lecturer (screenwriting), English & Creative Writing, Staffordshire University.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Following a mountaineer as he reaches the summit of Mount Everest

Accounts from Vikas Dimri’s second attempt reveal the immense fortitude and strength needed to summit the Everest.

Vikas Dimri made a huge attempt last year to climb the Mount Everest. Fate had other plans. Thwarted by unfavourable weather at the last minute, he came so close and yet not close enough to say he was at the top. But that did not deter him. Vikas is back on the Everest trail now, and this time he’s sharing his experiences at every leg of the journey.

The Everest journey began from the Lukla airport, known for its dicey landing conditions. It reminded him of the failed expedition, but he still moved on to Namche Bazaar - the staging point for Everest expeditions - with a positive mind. Vikas let the wisdom of the mountains guide him as he battled doubt and memories of the previous expedition. In his words, the Everest taught him that, “To conquer our personal Everest, we need to drop all our unnecessary baggage, be it physical or mental or even emotional”.

Vikas used a ‘descent for ascent’ approach to acclimatise. In this approach, mountaineers gain altitude during the day, but descend to catch some sleep. Acclimatising to such high altitudes is crucial as the lack of adequate oxygen can cause dizziness, nausea, headache and even muscle death. As Vikas prepared to scale the riskiest part of the climb - the unstable and continuously melting Khumbhu ice fall - he pondered over his journey so far.

His brother’s diagnosis of a heart condition in his youth was a wakeup call for the rather sedentary Vikas, and that is when he started focusing on his health more. For the first time in his life, he began to appreciate the power of nutrition and experimented with different diets and supplements for their health benefits. His quest for better health also motivated him to take up hiking, marathon running, squash and, eventually, a summit of the Everest.

Back in the Himalayas, after a string of sleepless nights, Vikas and his team ascended to Camp 2 (6,500m) as planned, and then descended to Base Camp for the basic luxuries - hot shower, hot lunch and essential supplements. Back up at Camp 2, the weather played spoiler again as a jet stream - a fast-flowing, narrow air current - moved right over the mountain. Wisdom from the mountains helped Vikas maintain perspective as they were required to descend 15km to Pheriche Valley. He accepted that “strength lies not merely in chasing the big dream, but also in...accepting that things could go wrong.”

At Camp 4 (8,000m), famously known as the death zone, Vikas caught a clear glimpse of the summit – his dream standing rather tall in front of him.

It was the 18th of May 2018 and Vikas finally reached the top. The top of his Everest…the top of Mount Everest!

Watch the video below to see actual moments from Vikas’ climb.


Vikas credits his strength to dedication, exercise and a healthy diet. He credits dietary supplements for helping him sustain himself in the inhuman conditions on Mount Everest. On heights like these where the oxygen supply drops to 1/3rd the levels on the ground, the body requires 3 times the regular blood volume to pump the requisite amount of oxygen. He, thus, doesn’t embark on an expedition without double checking his supplements and uses Livogen as an aid to maintain adequate amounts of iron in his blood.

Livogen is proud to have supported Vikas Dimri on his ambitious quest and salutes his spirit. To read more about the benefits of iron, see here. To read Vikas Dimri’s account of his expedition, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Livogen and not by the Scroll editorial team.