Task 1- The Theory of Films (Marina)

Write an illustrative report, justifying and explaining why your selected Directors can be considered an Auteur or seems necessarily fitting for another (give a wide range of specific examples from their work). 

In this assignment I have chosen to write about the auteur theory and the director (in my opinion) deemed as an Auteur. To successfully carry out this half of the assignment we must crudely uncover the auteur theory; what is the auteur theory? Why I would assign my chosen director as relative to that theory?

The Auteur Theory is when a movie director (because of their impressive works) could be labelled as also the author/an artist. This can be possible if the director primarily, carries out what the actors job is; portraying important messages or in terms of history driven movies, capturing and conveying an unimaginable image and breathing life into it. So if actors are artists because movies are an art form and they form the end product to make it an art, then surely the director is surely the first artist? This is because they have the image in mind already but then hires actors to materialize it; all actions are precipitated by thought.

The Director I have chosen to support this theory is the well-known Quentin Tarantino. He’s the perfect fit for this theory for the main reason that if the name ‘Tarantino’ were to be spoken you could instantly visualize one of his films, or if you were luckily invited to the cinema by a friend and you asked what the film at interest was and they told you it was a ‘Tarantino’ film, there’d be a high expectation set, for action, gore etc.

The movie that I chose to analyze (directed by Quentin Tarantino) is 'Django Unchained'. This movie is about Slavery in the U.S set in the 1850's, a Bounty Hunter looks for three brothers to claim his bounty but requires help from a slave that used to work on the plantation of these 3 brothers (Brittle Brothers); whereby he buys the slave to exempt any potential harm that could find the slave on the venture. After their venture, Django (former slave) chooses to go on the find for his long lost wife now that he'd been granted the literal freedom to do so. This film also captures the brutal, inhumane conditions that the people of color had to endure.

In the opening scene, the slaves were walking in single file, the color was dull (grey) this could foreshadow something rather unpleasant is about to take place. Promptly, they walk into a dark (black) forest whereby the first murders occur; The Bounty Hunter left the 2 slaves owners that lead the slaves in the first place in critical condition by shooting one dead and injuring the other. This then leaves them no choice than to allow the owner to purchase Django after previously being constantly denied the permission to do so by the very 2 slave owners he shot. It's fair to say the grey and black from the beginning, foretold the audience that something very off/cunning was about to happen. 

As you go through the movie, you'll find that it's never quite sunny (yellow, bright) this can be annotated that the movie is mainly a follow up of what took place in the beginning. Because of the opening and repetitive scenes of death this movie could be assigned to the thriller genre.

The Bounty Hunter and Django finally stumble upon the 3 brothers they were looking for. As Django approaches the first brother to confront him, the camera follows him sharply, he then stops and fixes himself in a steadfast stance and yells out "John Brittle". The camera stops also and catches the moment he turns around. This sudden pause creates suspense and also places a strain/deep focus on the seriousness of the current situation.
He shoots him and then his brother, afterward he promptly  joins The Bounty Hunter. Django spots the third brother out in the field on his horse then the Bounty Hunter claims the pleasure of causing a gory yet significant killing of the third brother by shooting him from distance.

The death was significant for the mere fact that when he was shot, blood (red) spewed from his back in slow motion in a volatile manner, dressing the (white) tulips below him on the field. Red in film studies represents danger, alarm, threats etc. Contrary to that, White represents peace, innocence etc. So we can then infer that the hope and peace that was once there, from this moment is/will be in threat of disaster of jeopardy. 

The second theory i'll be looking at is the Feminism Theory. This is the institutionalized theory that exercises the belief that women are equal to men or any other race in that same fashion. This theory aims to abolish the subjugation of women or the living notion that women are in the slightest, inferior to anyone or anything. 

The director i'll be focusing on is Haifaa al-Mansour; the first female Saudi filmmaker. This is probably the strongest grounds for the films that she directs as she's from one of the most patriarchal countries in the world. The movie i have chosen to analyse pertaining to the criteria (directed by Haifaa al-Mansour) is called Nappily Ever After. 

In this film, Sanaa Lathan (protagonist) goes through her life as an ordinary Black woman, fighting the struggle of acceptance (her hair). This is an accurate representation, of the struggles that a black female goes through; if a black woman wants to show that she doesn't confine to European standards of beauty by wearing straight hair (weave) then she wears her natural 'Nappy' hair which she is then ridiculed for her. So she then has no choice but to then conform to the European standards. The downside is that she restrains from doing certain activities because she doesn't want to ruin it so even when women are equal in the eyes of the law, they're not psychologically free. This is different to men because it's obvious that the same pressures don't combat the minds of men. 

There's a scene in the movie where she is in the club with her friends, a stranger offers to buy her a few drinks and orders her some shots. In the process she gets drunk and therefore ends up going home with him. While she slowly stumbles through his large house, he grabs hold of her and the moment comes to a halt. The camera now faces her as he begins to basque in her appearance and starts by pointing out that her hair told him 'everything that he needed to know'. This is important for the audience to pay attention to because this is the first thing a guy notices and this adds more pressure on her to become even more conscious about it. 


Eventually she takes a cab to find her ex to rekindle the fire and finds him with a straight-haired black woman at a table in the middle of a moment that was somewhat intimate, he notices her, rushes over and 10 seconds into it - "What did you do to your hair" (jokingly). This forces her to cut her hair off completely, later on in the movie. The director has shown that there are pressures that women are susceptible to such as judgment of character and so forth through something as simple as hair, but can it be broken? Yes...