One thing that bothers me about this “new” auteurism is that, at least as practiced by online critics such as those at Mubi, it frequently reproduces some of the more dubious aspects of the “old” auteurism. Such critics often unquestioningly privilege thematic and stylistic consistency as markers of quality (no capital “Q” btw). This places a premium on strained, willful readings of certain films to pack them into a coherent directorial “worldview” (or a dismissal of films they can’t fit into same). Similarly, such worldviews are often summarized in those grandiose-yet-gaseous terms familiar from the most hyperbolic of Cahiers reviews. At its worst (which is certainly not all of the time!), “vulgar auteurism” steadfastly ignores all but the most convenient information about collaborations, craft practices, and industrial context.

I appreciate the attention paid to McTiernan, Scott, Bay and the resulting observations of their stylistic (and occasionally narrative) contributions. But too often these observations drag along familiar assumptions and fallacies. I’d note that these critics have done little to better-refine the vague notion of “mise-en-scène” they use to praise this or that “vulgar auteur” (I’d except Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and his writing on “workflow”).

On a side note, I think the general failure of the self-described “vulgar auteurists” to confront Zemeckis, one of the most protean of major contemporary directors, suggests the limits of their approach….