So far I have shown how the auteur theory
has survived 50 years of conceptual opposition through to the present day,
although emerging in a different form at start of the 21st century than it
was as defined in the 1950s. David Lynch's career has done nothing to
undermine this theory and until he produces a radically atypical film he serves
only to reinforce the fifty year old theory.
Lynch has sufficient strength of identity within his work and
idiosyncracity of world view to warrant his position as auteur,
and he is likely to be accepted as such by the current film making establishment
due to the marketing potential of his name. But, for a director that has produced
only eight full length features, it may be premature assigning this tag to a director
so early in his career.
David Foster Wallace, in his 'Premiere' article, said :
"Whether you believe he's a good auteur or a bad one, his career makes it clear that
he is indeed, in the literal Cahiers du Cinema sense, an auteur, willing to make the
sorts of sacrifices for creative control that real auteurs have to make - choices that
indicate either raging egotism or passionate dedication or a childlike desire to run
the sandbox, or all three."
As Orson Welles said (quoted by Pam Cook),
"Cinema is the work of a single man, the
director". Lynch's films, good or bad, successful or not, have been the work of a
film-maker in control of his medium, aware of his position as auteur and willing to
assert it within his texts.