What do you think?
Rate this book
Hollywood's Artists: The Directors Guild of America and the Construction of Authorship
Today, the director is considered the leading artistic force behind a film. The production of a Hollywood movie requires the labor of many people, from screenwriters and editors to cinematographers and boom operators, but the director as author of the film overshadows them all. How did this concept of the director become so deeply ingrained in our understanding of cinema?
In Hollywood’s Artists , Virginia Wright Wexman offers a groundbreaking history of how movie directors became cinematic auteurs that reveals and pinpoints the influence of the Directors Guild of America (DGA). Guided by Frank Capra’s mantra “one man, one film,” the Guild has portrayed its director-members as the creators responsible for turning Hollywood entertainment into cinematic art. Wexman details how the DGA differentiated itself from other industry unions, focusing on issues of status and creative control as opposed to bread-and-butter concerns like wages and working conditions. She also traces the Guild’s struggle for creative and legal power, exploring subjects from the language of on-screen credits to the House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigations of the movie industry. Wexman emphasizes the gendered nature of images of the great director, demonstrating how the DGA promoted the idea of the director as a masculine hero. Drawing on a broad array of archival sources, interviews, and theoretical and sociological insight, Hollywood’s Artists sheds new light on the ways in which the Directors Guild of America has shaped the role and image of directors both within the Hollywood system and in the culture at large.
In Hollywood’s Artists , Virginia Wright Wexman offers a groundbreaking history of how movie directors became cinematic auteurs that reveals and pinpoints the influence of the Directors Guild of America (DGA). Guided by Frank Capra’s mantra “one man, one film,” the Guild has portrayed its director-members as the creators responsible for turning Hollywood entertainment into cinematic art. Wexman details how the DGA differentiated itself from other industry unions, focusing on issues of status and creative control as opposed to bread-and-butter concerns like wages and working conditions. She also traces the Guild’s struggle for creative and legal power, exploring subjects from the language of on-screen credits to the House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigations of the movie industry. Wexman emphasizes the gendered nature of images of the great director, demonstrating how the DGA promoted the idea of the director as a masculine hero. Drawing on a broad array of archival sources, interviews, and theoretical and sociological insight, Hollywood’s Artists sheds new light on the ways in which the Directors Guild of America has shaped the role and image of directors both within the Hollywood system and in the culture at large.
312 pages, Paperback
Published July 21, 2020
1 person is currently reading
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 2, 2020
In order to grasp the complexities of the role and position of the film director in the cultural zeitgeist, one need look no further than Virginia Wright Wexman’s intriguing book, Hollywood Artists: The Director’s Guild of America and the Construction of Authorship. It is both a historical account of the The Director’s Guild of America, or DGA, as well as a thorough analysis of the effects of the institution to form a narrative about the role and image of the working film director. Rather than building a chronological timeline of the guild, Wexmen examines how the DGA was established, how it has remained a powerful, dominating force in the Hollywood film industry, and it’s role informing the very perception of a director’s purpose, validity, and credibility as a film artist. Wexman uses frequent quotes and records of the guild’s activities to weave an engaging argument for how the attitude of the institution has shaped the filmmaking landscape, including feeding into and off of the auteur theory, while still exploring the complexities of how a group, such as the DGA develops their own agenda of “placing emphasis on the artist as a symbol of individuality and freedom” feeding into a system that uses this as a means to reap profits and further marginalize opportunities for women.
For anyone with simply a passing knowledge of Hollywood filmmaking or a director’s role, Wexman manages to make the nitty gritty details of her account making it digestible while creating intrigue in her argument by providing compelling testimony, and like the plot of an intricate narrative, examines each aspect of the organization’s relationship with other unions as well as how the Guild contradicts within it’s own brand of authorship. Wexman lays out her intentions in the introduction, which highlights the story of the Guild’s objectives, sense of worth and purpose, desire for recognition, their weaving of their own historical narrative within the trends of Hollywood industry, and their actions to legally gain complete creative control over a production for their members. Splitting these section into five distinct chapters, she builds a portrait of the Guild in a more introspective manner, that reminds the reader of the full scope of the Guild’s history. Each section is peppered with historical and cultural context and lends a richness and relevancy to testimony she presents. She further establishes the intent of this research surrounding the DGA to explore the the conception of authorship as a cultural construction, within the context of artists fueling the agendas of the institution and cultural trends supporting these agendas. Wexman’s insight into the institution and argument for the DGA’s influence over the industry makes her book an essential reading for anyone to grasp the complex nature of the auteur theory.
Wexman makes it clear that the very nature of auteur theory is solidified with the DGA’s head figure and one of its founders, director Frank Capra and his vehement belief of “one man, one film.” Capra, in her book, along with John Ford, becomes an almost embodiment of the Guild’s ideology. He stands on the cover, his fist on his hip, by a camera. The representation of the director as a masculine individualist, commanding authority. While early filmmakers made lengths to make themselves widely known, and promote authorship over their work, the Guild presents itself early in cinema history as a means for directors to establish control over their position, which Wexman cites was beginning to be diminished and manipulated by Hollywood producers in the 1930’s, who saw the role of the director as little more than a selling point . They entertained the image of director as a singular artist in order to assume prestige to a picture. To further situate their status, the DGA would go on to “support actives designed to situate directors within the context of the high arts and in relation to the academic culture..” For proper context, the first chapter, Wexman examines the very terms that the organization uses to distinguish itself and at times contradict itself. The term “guild” being used to describe the organization, instead of “union”, puts the focus of the group on their rights as creative artists, rather than working conditions and compensation. It’s details such as this that really help paint the picture of the Guild’s significance in orchestrating a consensus of film directors as artists. A fascinating note that she ends this chapter with is to emphasize that while the DGA has had a stronghold in its influence of mainstream cinema as art, and directors as their sole artistic authors, the 21st century has seen a great shift in how cinema is defined. The line between Television and Film is blurrier than ever, and though Wexman stops just short of delving further into this topic, she’s quick to include that prestigious film institutions are adverse to the changing times and are fighting, with resistance to distinguish cinematic art from lower forms of content. One can see how this could be updated even within a few years as the theatrical film experience becomes less and less of a cultural opportunity.
As the pervious chapter took a look at the nature and will of the Guild itself, chapter 2 begins with further context about the nature of the film director. In examining the role of a director and how different interpretations of the position contradict one another, (many sum up the position as that of a captain, conductor, or general; one that supervises the creative talents of others.) and with the theory of “one man, one film” defining a director as a film’s sole creative author, we see clearly how this position, as well as the DGA’s actions have bred a hierarchy that puts the director on top and gives credence to toxic masculine behavior and demotes the importance of other collaborators. Wexman notes that there are still roles considered “above-the-line and below-the-line” and directors have managed to only defend their position from “above-the-line” talents, namely producers, actors, and writers. She breaks down each of these roles with a flourish for historical context and statements made by DGA presidents, weaving these stories of film history to highlight how personal competition shapes positions of power. A director’s relationship with a producer starts a contentious battle of creative freedom with two separate end goals. Wexman distinguishes how a producer’s role, concerning more with profit margins have throughout history negotiated creative freedom away to directors in favor of greater financial gain. Actors in this case, more aptly, acting celebrities have only served as a threat when they themselves have used their power overrule a director’s authority directly, while the struggle between film writers and directors have been the ones in direct opposition in terms of vying for the coveted title of “film author.” Careful to remind the reader that the position of writer is well more situated in tradition of theater and has a longer standing foothold in the artistic community, Wexman accounts for how for most of the twentieth century the DGA has managed to stay a step ahead of writing unions by using political roadblocks, like communism scares in the 1950’s, as well as cultural trends to deepen the image of directors over writers as captains of the film production. The one exception she notes, has been in the realm of Television which the DGA have historically accepted as an inferior medium. It’s only within the rise of prestige television and the conversion of directing talent to the medium that the Guild became concerned about its position when the issue of recognition and credit began to become a larger issue. Again, Wexman is able to highlight how technological changes in the 21st century, as well as cultural shifts have placed the position of the Guild in an awkward state of resistance. What’s most troubling in her conclusion to this section is how perfectly she links these traits that have become so synonymous with charismatic leadership, physical prowess, and a hierarchy that marginalizes women. As Wexman puts it, “The image of directors as individualistic leaders also disadvantaged women by distancing them from a culture of collaboration that was implicitly marked as feminine.” In summation, the DGA, in all of its influence, has only increased a gender bias already established within Hollywood, and despite feeble efforts to change, their aura of masculine privileged has dominated the industry.
All of chapter 3 concerns itself with the details in which screen credit has been so fervently sought after by filmmakers since its inception. This section also includes some of the more anecdotal accounts that not only give an account and support the egocentric nature of the DGA. Beginning with an amusing anecdote about director John Ford having a nightmare in which arriving at the heavenly gates he finds it sign posted “Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck” this anecdote sets the tone for obsessive lengths that the DGA have gone to secure credit, but a particular brand of idolized authorship. Once again, Wexman has the knack for going through the history of cinema and the Guild itself from another unique angle. She supports the beginning of this obsession for credits with accounts of early filmmakers vying to make their name known and seen, particularly above the title of the movie. Frank Capra, particularly saw this line of credit as a way to assert his creative dominance over a film, so much so that his autobiography was titled The Name Above the Title. Wexman is again able to draw connections between this preoccupation with titles with the marginalization of women and a pretentious nature that puts the director in a state above “persons of lesser importance.”
One of the most famous singular events to take place within the Guild, has an entire chapter devoted to its myth, which for Wexman acts as a crescendo that speaks volumes about the nature of the Guild. This event, or showdown as described took place during the House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigation into the Guild during a communist witch-hunt that was every bit as melodramatic a narrative as studio director could construct. The story recounts how a majority of the members were able to stand up against forces of evil, involving two directors facing off in a showdown, culminating in honor being restored. As Wexman notes, this constructed version of events only exists to enable the organization to support its image by adding political motif, backing their charismatic masculine ideals, and romanticizing history. It’s a narrative right out of a Capra picture. Wexman’s sorting of true events shines a light on the myth of the story, revealing a complex set of motives within the group to save their own faces and play two sides of a tense political atmosphere. Ultimately the real battle fought was for the survival of the Guild itself or as she puts it “whatever the cost to the political ideals and professional integrity of some of its most prominent members.”
The final area in which Wexman concludes her findings is all encompassing. The desire for directors to obtain complete ownership over their films once they have been distributed. She accounts how the DGA have used the process of colorization of black and white films as a legal stepping stone to try to gain complete rights over their films. What’s intriguing about this aspect is how much of a public relations opportunity this was for the Guild. In rallying for support, the narrative can read so strongly as a valiant and noble effort for cinema preservation, but through the DGA, it was primarily a means for gaining power. The events described in this section are also the most recent relevant steps taken by the DGA to assert its position within the industry even further. As the Guild has as of yet been unsuccessful in extending creative rights into ownership rights, we are left with the feeling of the balancing act the DGA has been carrying out since its inception; that of “one man, one film” while cultivating the creative work of other artists.
Wexman’s study of the Director’s Guild of America has proven to be a substantial document for understanding the history of the role of a Hollywood film director, the type of persona the Guild fosters and idealizes, and its impact on cinema studies and the film industry. She’s able to provide a critical study of the auteur theory from a technical point of view. In examining how the Guild executes their agenda, she is able to highlight the nature of their influence. Her findings are both critical and objective and speak volumes to the nature and understanding of the auteur theory. With vital historical context, as well as a sober look ahead to how the Guild’s agenda shaped our modern understanding of filmmaking, she engages the reader into the material with the skill of a relevant cultural journalist and a master storyteller.
For anyone with simply a passing knowledge of Hollywood filmmaking or a director’s role, Wexman manages to make the nitty gritty details of her account making it digestible while creating intrigue in her argument by providing compelling testimony, and like the plot of an intricate narrative, examines each aspect of the organization’s relationship with other unions as well as how the Guild contradicts within it’s own brand of authorship. Wexman lays out her intentions in the introduction, which highlights the story of the Guild’s objectives, sense of worth and purpose, desire for recognition, their weaving of their own historical narrative within the trends of Hollywood industry, and their actions to legally gain complete creative control over a production for their members. Splitting these section into five distinct chapters, she builds a portrait of the Guild in a more introspective manner, that reminds the reader of the full scope of the Guild’s history. Each section is peppered with historical and cultural context and lends a richness and relevancy to testimony she presents. She further establishes the intent of this research surrounding the DGA to explore the the conception of authorship as a cultural construction, within the context of artists fueling the agendas of the institution and cultural trends supporting these agendas. Wexman’s insight into the institution and argument for the DGA’s influence over the industry makes her book an essential reading for anyone to grasp the complex nature of the auteur theory.
Wexman makes it clear that the very nature of auteur theory is solidified with the DGA’s head figure and one of its founders, director Frank Capra and his vehement belief of “one man, one film.” Capra, in her book, along with John Ford, becomes an almost embodiment of the Guild’s ideology. He stands on the cover, his fist on his hip, by a camera. The representation of the director as a masculine individualist, commanding authority. While early filmmakers made lengths to make themselves widely known, and promote authorship over their work, the Guild presents itself early in cinema history as a means for directors to establish control over their position, which Wexman cites was beginning to be diminished and manipulated by Hollywood producers in the 1930’s, who saw the role of the director as little more than a selling point . They entertained the image of director as a singular artist in order to assume prestige to a picture. To further situate their status, the DGA would go on to “support actives designed to situate directors within the context of the high arts and in relation to the academic culture..” For proper context, the first chapter, Wexman examines the very terms that the organization uses to distinguish itself and at times contradict itself. The term “guild” being used to describe the organization, instead of “union”, puts the focus of the group on their rights as creative artists, rather than working conditions and compensation. It’s details such as this that really help paint the picture of the Guild’s significance in orchestrating a consensus of film directors as artists. A fascinating note that she ends this chapter with is to emphasize that while the DGA has had a stronghold in its influence of mainstream cinema as art, and directors as their sole artistic authors, the 21st century has seen a great shift in how cinema is defined. The line between Television and Film is blurrier than ever, and though Wexman stops just short of delving further into this topic, she’s quick to include that prestigious film institutions are adverse to the changing times and are fighting, with resistance to distinguish cinematic art from lower forms of content. One can see how this could be updated even within a few years as the theatrical film experience becomes less and less of a cultural opportunity.
As the pervious chapter took a look at the nature and will of the Guild itself, chapter 2 begins with further context about the nature of the film director. In examining the role of a director and how different interpretations of the position contradict one another, (many sum up the position as that of a captain, conductor, or general; one that supervises the creative talents of others.) and with the theory of “one man, one film” defining a director as a film’s sole creative author, we see clearly how this position, as well as the DGA’s actions have bred a hierarchy that puts the director on top and gives credence to toxic masculine behavior and demotes the importance of other collaborators. Wexman notes that there are still roles considered “above-the-line and below-the-line” and directors have managed to only defend their position from “above-the-line” talents, namely producers, actors, and writers. She breaks down each of these roles with a flourish for historical context and statements made by DGA presidents, weaving these stories of film history to highlight how personal competition shapes positions of power. A director’s relationship with a producer starts a contentious battle of creative freedom with two separate end goals. Wexman distinguishes how a producer’s role, concerning more with profit margins have throughout history negotiated creative freedom away to directors in favor of greater financial gain. Actors in this case, more aptly, acting celebrities have only served as a threat when they themselves have used their power overrule a director’s authority directly, while the struggle between film writers and directors have been the ones in direct opposition in terms of vying for the coveted title of “film author.” Careful to remind the reader that the position of writer is well more situated in tradition of theater and has a longer standing foothold in the artistic community, Wexman accounts for how for most of the twentieth century the DGA has managed to stay a step ahead of writing unions by using political roadblocks, like communism scares in the 1950’s, as well as cultural trends to deepen the image of directors over writers as captains of the film production. The one exception she notes, has been in the realm of Television which the DGA have historically accepted as an inferior medium. It’s only within the rise of prestige television and the conversion of directing talent to the medium that the Guild became concerned about its position when the issue of recognition and credit began to become a larger issue. Again, Wexman is able to highlight how technological changes in the 21st century, as well as cultural shifts have placed the position of the Guild in an awkward state of resistance. What’s most troubling in her conclusion to this section is how perfectly she links these traits that have become so synonymous with charismatic leadership, physical prowess, and a hierarchy that marginalizes women. As Wexman puts it, “The image of directors as individualistic leaders also disadvantaged women by distancing them from a culture of collaboration that was implicitly marked as feminine.” In summation, the DGA, in all of its influence, has only increased a gender bias already established within Hollywood, and despite feeble efforts to change, their aura of masculine privileged has dominated the industry.
All of chapter 3 concerns itself with the details in which screen credit has been so fervently sought after by filmmakers since its inception. This section also includes some of the more anecdotal accounts that not only give an account and support the egocentric nature of the DGA. Beginning with an amusing anecdote about director John Ford having a nightmare in which arriving at the heavenly gates he finds it sign posted “Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck” this anecdote sets the tone for obsessive lengths that the DGA have gone to secure credit, but a particular brand of idolized authorship. Once again, Wexman has the knack for going through the history of cinema and the Guild itself from another unique angle. She supports the beginning of this obsession for credits with accounts of early filmmakers vying to make their name known and seen, particularly above the title of the movie. Frank Capra, particularly saw this line of credit as a way to assert his creative dominance over a film, so much so that his autobiography was titled The Name Above the Title. Wexman is again able to draw connections between this preoccupation with titles with the marginalization of women and a pretentious nature that puts the director in a state above “persons of lesser importance.”
One of the most famous singular events to take place within the Guild, has an entire chapter devoted to its myth, which for Wexman acts as a crescendo that speaks volumes about the nature of the Guild. This event, or showdown as described took place during the House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigation into the Guild during a communist witch-hunt that was every bit as melodramatic a narrative as studio director could construct. The story recounts how a majority of the members were able to stand up against forces of evil, involving two directors facing off in a showdown, culminating in honor being restored. As Wexman notes, this constructed version of events only exists to enable the organization to support its image by adding political motif, backing their charismatic masculine ideals, and romanticizing history. It’s a narrative right out of a Capra picture. Wexman’s sorting of true events shines a light on the myth of the story, revealing a complex set of motives within the group to save their own faces and play two sides of a tense political atmosphere. Ultimately the real battle fought was for the survival of the Guild itself or as she puts it “whatever the cost to the political ideals and professional integrity of some of its most prominent members.”
The final area in which Wexman concludes her findings is all encompassing. The desire for directors to obtain complete ownership over their films once they have been distributed. She accounts how the DGA have used the process of colorization of black and white films as a legal stepping stone to try to gain complete rights over their films. What’s intriguing about this aspect is how much of a public relations opportunity this was for the Guild. In rallying for support, the narrative can read so strongly as a valiant and noble effort for cinema preservation, but through the DGA, it was primarily a means for gaining power. The events described in this section are also the most recent relevant steps taken by the DGA to assert its position within the industry even further. As the Guild has as of yet been unsuccessful in extending creative rights into ownership rights, we are left with the feeling of the balancing act the DGA has been carrying out since its inception; that of “one man, one film” while cultivating the creative work of other artists.
Wexman’s study of the Director’s Guild of America has proven to be a substantial document for understanding the history of the role of a Hollywood film director, the type of persona the Guild fosters and idealizes, and its impact on cinema studies and the film industry. She’s able to provide a critical study of the auteur theory from a technical point of view. In examining how the Guild executes their agenda, she is able to highlight the nature of their influence. Her findings are both critical and objective and speak volumes to the nature and understanding of the auteur theory. With vital historical context, as well as a sober look ahead to how the Guild’s agenda shaped our modern understanding of filmmaking, she engages the reader into the material with the skill of a relevant cultural journalist and a master storyteller.
January 19, 2022
Professor Wexman does not lack ambition in her newest book Hollywood’s Artists
The Directors Guild of America and the Construction of Authorship, which outlines an impressive range of objectives. First of all, she wants to show how the Guild created the idea of directors as artists. She moves on to how directors adopted the image of charismatic leaders and then how they are recognised. Wexman then looks at how the Directors Guild of America (DGA) - which was initially called the Screen Directors Guild (SDG) - constructed a narrative about the famous meeting on 22 October 1950. Finally, Wexman examines the legal aspects of the Guild with its ownership rights.
Full review published in Film and History on:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/842294
The Directors Guild of America and the Construction of Authorship, which outlines an impressive range of objectives. First of all, she wants to show how the Guild created the idea of directors as artists. She moves on to how directors adopted the image of charismatic leaders and then how they are recognised. Wexman then looks at how the Directors Guild of America (DGA) - which was initially called the Screen Directors Guild (SDG) - constructed a narrative about the famous meeting on 22 October 1950. Finally, Wexman examines the legal aspects of the Guild with its ownership rights.
Full review published in Film and History on:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/842294
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews