Welcome to Auteuse Theory

Welcome to Auteuse Theory. The purpose of this blog is to allow us to think about and write about a range of films made by women, from silent re-discoveries to the latest releases, from activist documentaries to mainstream Hollywood features, taking in examples from across the globe, whether famous or obscure. We have no desire to force ham-fisted links between very different films and very different filmmakers, to insist that they fit some pre-designated template of women’s cinema. Quite the opposite; we want to explore the diversity of forms taken by women’s filmmaking across different nations and eras. So why focus on women as a separate category at all? Why isolate their films from those of their male peers and think about them as some kind of exceptional or special case? Well, there’s still the matter of persistent inequality of opportunity within certain key authorial roles in the film industries. We all know the stats: even now, post-Bigelow Oscar win, women only constitute 10% of directors globally, and 15% of screenwriters. This is an improvement on previous years but it’s still (obviously!) a very minor proportion of the whole. As the British director Lynne Ramsay has commented, it’s ‘a bit like a country not being filmed – and that country not having a voice. It really does matter.’ And although we are very reluctant to make simple equations between the fact of there being a woman being at the helm of a film and that film offering a more complex picture of femininity (there have always been battalions of male directors who are very good at telling female-focussed stories), there is nonetheless plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is often true.

Our main subject is film but we will inevitably make forays into television and other media from time to time. We will be focussing predominantly on films directed by women, but we’re also interested in including films which demonstrate female authorship in other ways (writing, producing or performance). And we won’t be thinking about those films solely as women’s films. We don’t want to ghettoise them, so we’ll be connecting them to the time and place of their production, or their place within a genre or a movement, as much as we connect them to each other. There will be no rhyme or reason to the films that we discuss or the order in which they appear, instead we’ll be hoping for serendipitous connections, unexpected correspondences, sharp contrasts, strange juxtapositions; in other words, a blog that aims to be perpetually different and surprising. Most of the writing will be undertaken by the two main authors but interspersed with guest reviews from others who will each bring a fresh perspective.

And, finally, why the title Auteuse Theory? We were scouting around for a name that indicated a response to the old-fashioned auteur theory, and its insistence on ‘virility’ as a marker of directorial quality (all that Hawks and Ford worship). Women hadn’t only been marginalised in the making of films but the select few who had managed to break through were often given short shrift in the founding critical histories of film (with the exception of the highly problematic case of Leni Riefenstahl), until feminist scholars put Arzner, Weber, Guy-Blache, Lupino and Varda back into the picture. And this work of excavation and rediscovery continues – see the Women Film Pioneers and Women and Silent British Cinema websites for ongoing examples. We are aware of the problems of using the French feminised form of a professional name, drawing a gendered distinction between male and female practitioners (just as some publications reject the word actress in favour of actor for both men and women), but in the spirit of subversion, we wanted to occupy and feminise a word - auteur - which still sits at the heart of so much film scholarship and film appreciation. And although the blog is called Auteuse Theory, it might be more appropriate to think in terms of 'theories', the more intellectually generous plural form. These are some theories and thoughts and ideas arising from watching these films made by women. We hope you enjoy reading them…

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Lucy Lumsden: A New Television Auteur?


Who is the auteur of a TV series? Is it the director? The writer? The producer?  A show might use a number of directors during the course of a series, and it is even more common for there to be a change of director if a show is recommissioned for many seasons. Solo-authored shows are becoming less common; some writers might pen multiple episodes, others just one, or there may be a writing duo or team scripting the series. Television auteurism has tended to favour producers, but contemporary series often have a host of them. Where is the singular creative vision to be located in television production?

I’m well aware that these aren’t new questions, they’ve been asked frequently by media commentators and academics. Yet a talk given by Lucy Lumsden at the BFI this month prompted me to revisit - and reconsider - the notion of the TV Auteur, particularly in British television comedy. Lumsden joined Sky as its first Head of Comedy in the Autumn of 2009, after leaving her post as the BBC’s controller of comedy commissioning earlier that year, and has since commissioned the broadcaster’s entire comedy slate. Lumsden has become the Poster Woman for not only Sky’s assertive push into the genre, but for a broader revival of scripted comedy on British television. (The choice of title for the BFI event, ‘TV’s Comedy Renaissance: Lucy Lumsden in Conversation’, underscoring this).

Sky’s comedies, such as Trollied (which debuted with 1.2 million viewers, Sky1’s biggest overnight rating of 2011), Mount Pleasant, Stella, The Café and Spy (for which Darren Boyd won a 2012 BAFTA for Best Comedy Performance), have generated a lot of industry and press buzz. However there’s more than just a sense of novelty unifying Lumsden’s commissions to date. These shows seem to have a distinct tone, a particular flavour which brings them together as a body of work in spite of the range of producers, directors, writers and on-screen talent involved. When talking about the development of Sky’s comedy program, there were three characteristics that Lumsden indicated were common to all the shows: place, family, and love.

When Lumsden’s role was created Sky was best known for its American acquisitions and so an important rationale behind new commissions was that they reflected modern Britain; ‘that it was about us’ as she puts it. To do that she focused on precinct shows, with which came ‘a strong sense of place’: Trollied in a Warrington supermarket, The Café set in Weston-super-Mare, Stella in the Welsh valleys. However she swiftly adds that there was a more pragmatic reason for the emphasis on regionality in the shows’ settings, in that ‘it’s a bit of a shortcut to having strong characters with a very strong identity’.

Media observers have been quick to suggest that TV comedy’s revitalization is linked to the economic recession, but Lumsden denies this: ‘When I started that wasn’t the mantra of the time. What is that about? I think it was about a return to family maybe; sort of values that felt very important.’ This seems to connect significantly with the quality she suggests is central to all Sky’s comedy crop so far, something which may have been lacking in the genre in the preceding years. ‘The other thing is love is at the heart of pretty much all of our shows’, she says, ‘I’m not obsessed with this, and there will be other sorts of comedy, but I just felt we needed it. We needed it in our comedy.’ Love also seems to be at the heart of Lumsden’s relationship with the comedies themselves. She claims she has been able to work more closely with producers, writers and directors than in her BBC role, and so has felt much more connected to her commissions: ‘I’ve enjoyed a bit more of a personal relationship with each of the shows, it’s really creatively rewarding to feel you’re at the beginning of each journey’.

Lumsden’s motivations, sensibility and approach to comedy production – the atmosphere of creative freedom she has sought to create – have given Sky’s comedy output a clear sense of brand. There’s certainly a strong argument for presenting her as a contemporary television auteur. She, however, is uneasy about the mantle that has been placed upon her and speaks self-deprecatingly about being ‘just thrilled’ to be involved during such a great time for comedy. ‘I mean, look at that’ she says, indicating the projection of the BFI talk’s title, ‘it feels a bit ridiculous, a bit surreal!’

No comments:

Post a Comment