In its exercise, it delegates to the cinema director the total authorship on the film: The film is for the director as well as the book for the writer. The director carries through the film as its subjectivity and express who it is for the film. ' ' The author is one cineasta that if express, that express what he inside has of it. ' ' (Bernardet, 1994:22) This does not want to say that the authorial film treats, in its plot, of the interior life of the director. As it points Bernardet, a spectacle has a real effort of the director in the direction to become the film, taking off to it the subjective traces. But what the adepts of the politics defend it is that in all film of managing determined one if it can identify common and individual traces of the director. Either in the form to film, either in the form to mount the film, either in thematic a recurrent one? in the cases where the director also is author of the script? that is: in mise-en-scne of the film, he has a set of meanings that are generated and that it is recurrent in all the films of the author.
This set of meanings can be called ' ' temtica' ' of the author, or still its ' ' moral' ' (recurrent term in the movement of the Nouvelle Vague). Theoreticians call it to the Chabrol/Rohmer ' ' idea-me' '. Jean-Claude Bernardet of ' ' matriz' '. He is something that permeia all the films it author independently them different enredos or sorts that they can assume. He is something that is beyond the only experience of a film and if he finds in the set of the workmanship of the author. The director/author necessarily does not need to be author of the script, since that this gives subsidy to it to operate it according to its ' ' moral' ' , its philosophy.