In order to ascertain as to whether Hitchcock can be considered an auteur, the understanding of what makes an auteur and its origin needs to be explored.
It is believed that a director can either be classified as a metteur-en-scene or an auteur. The classification of an auteur originates from the early 1950's, when a magazine in France, Cahier du Cinema' produced by directors of the French new wave' believed that certain directors including Hitchcock left a personal stamp on the films they produced. Francois Truffaut said. "There are no good and bad movies, only good and bad directors" indicating that he believes the success of a film is reflected on how the director interpreted the script. Auteur theory is based on the idea that the film director is the artist, meaning that a director could be seen as a parallel to a novelist or painter.
Andrew Sarris was the man who introduced Auteurism to the states with his book, Notes on Auteur Theory' in 1962. "The way the film looks and moves should have some relationship to the way the director thinks and feels". Sarris proposed three criteria for recognising an auteur, which I can use to determine if Hitchcock can be, classified an auteur according to Sarris. The criteria were, Technical competence
Interior meaning arising from tension between personality and material
It is apparent that classifying a director as an auteur is a personal opinion, and there is no strict definition or classification of what or who makes an auteur, hence resulting in the auteur argument that still exists today. I can however decide if Hitchcock can be classed as an auteur by seeing if his work meets any of Sarris' criteria, other opinions combined with my own personal opinion.
I do believe that auteur theory exists, by the fact that films are a product of...