Are Spielberg, Scorsese lesser auteurs because they don't write their own films?

Spielberg and Scorsese are often hailed as the two brighest cinematic talents at the end of the twentieth century. But neither guy wrote their films. So are they lesser artists than the likes of Woody Allen and Cameron Crowe.

I can see the point of view that says they are. Allen and Crowe's work is far more personal than anything that was ever delivered by Spielberg especially. The screenwriting is often the heart of the movie, the director simply tells the writer's story.

However, I think a writer can get bogged down on a similar theme. Some argue Woody Allen has been making the same film for his entire career. While a director who isn't dependant on his own ideas can work on a more varied number of genres.

Personally, the work of the writer is vastly underrated. To adapt a novel takes skill but also involves a lot of mechanics, but to write an original screenplay takes the work of an artist. Often this original screenplay is delivered on screen by a different person, the director, who goes on to great acclaim for something he never came up with. The director takes all the plaudits. Is that right? Is that fair?

Perhaps not, but lest we forget, direction is an art in itself. The director has to decide on the actor's performance, the tone of the movie, how the movie will look, what costumes to wear, what angle to shoot from, etc. Direction is all about choice. To balance this with a schedule and a budget makes this art more technical than it should be.

Direction comes down to one simple art however, that of telling a story. Ever try to read a screenplay, or even a book. It works best when you visualise it as a moving image. The director realises this fantasy for you so whether he wrote it or not, the director is the principle artist.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

First, Spielberg and Scorsese do write. Both have written screenplays-- Spielberg wrote CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and A.I., and Scorsese co-wrote MEAN STREETS and several other movies. And even when they don't get a writing credit, they probably make uncredited contributions (simply by virtue of the fact that they're in charge and able to work with the writer to get the scripts they want). Writing credits don't always tell the whole story. For example, Ernst Lubitsch never took a writing credit, but he would work in the same room as his writers, working out the story, planning scenes, throwing ideas back and forth. He participated fully in the writing process and was essentially an uncredited writer on his films (as Billy Wilder and others who wrote for Lubitsch have acknowledged). Hitchcock was the same way. In Europe, many directors would be credited only with working on the "scenario"--the story and action of the movie--while someone else got credit for the actual dialogue. So there are many ways for a director to participate in the writing without actually being "the writer."

That said, I think there are a lot of movies where the director is not the principal artist at all. Many of the great directors (like Lubitsch and Hitchcock) believed that the most important work was over once the shooting script was ready. A good script can triumph over weak direction, but brilliant visuals cannot save a bad script. (The only people who think a movie can be great without a good script are French, who are nuts, and French-influenced critics, who wish they were nuts.)

Hi guys,
I don't think you can fault somebody who does great work, whether he does one thing or a dozen things. Is the dramatic actor who can also lift weights or sing opera a greater or lesser actor than the one who can't? It's irrelevant unless versatility is your one yardstick.

That said, the writing is indeed the heart of it -- bad story, bad dialog, bad motivation, or bad characterization = bad flick. (Although a really appealing actor can often save the box-office skin of an otherwise failing film -- e.g. I will pretty much go see anything with Nicholas Cage in it. Often to my dismay! Sucker for a pretty face, yes.)

Of course, I'm a writer, too. So I admit to cutting on the bias!
Love to all,
Jozie

i totally agree! majority of people just know them as great directors without them knowing that they are also great writers. on a higher note, before you can be an effective director, you should become an effective writer first and that is spielberg and scorsese made them stand out from others.

No I don't think writing has anything to do with being an Auteur. I think the part of being an Auteur is the fact that they work with different material and people, for example Hitchcock worked with all sorts of writers, but they are able to direct and use the camera in a way that makes the film stand out as unmistakeably theirs. They worked within the confines of the studio system, as part of production teams, but were able to get their vision to shine through. People like Ford and Hawks too, and even like Minnelli, although I haven't seen many films from him, but it's the same thing.

I believe that it's correct to say that the directors who don't write their movies' stories are lesser auteurs because writing is a whole different talent, and basically directing is taking another person's vision and giving it your touch, however big it is. So, great men, but people who are writers and directors both are just more talented.

I read JAWS, and I read Goodfellas, and that was after seeing the movies. Without a doubt in both instances the movies were better than the books, with JAWS by alot.

Is paint art?! Is the ability to make paint art?! No. Its what one does with the brush. Scorcese and Speilberg took the material, the paint, of those books and told a wonderful story in both instances.

GorillaTripping?! What a handle.......