"Auteur theory" is a concept originating in the late '40s that has become a staple of film criticism. The core idea is that a film's director is its "author," its sole creative mind. The one person who -- theoretically -- has a say in every visual, audio, and storytelling aspect of the movie, it is the director's personal stamp that defines the work. In other words, history's greatest films are created from singular artistic minds.

Within two short years, Alejandro González Iñárritu has become a poster child for the theory. The director came roaring back in 2014 with "Birdman," finding critical acclaim for his idiosyncratic comedy. At the Academy Awards, he won the trifecta of Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay. And with "The Revenant," he finds his Western nominated for 12 Oscars, including Best Director and Best Picture again. It is clear he has become a defining author for this decade, whose methods result in critical acclaim.

Said methods have taken over the discussion of "Revenant," with "adversity" becoming a bit of a buzz word. To put it lightly, production of this film was a disaster, almost exclusively stemming from the director's decision making. The film started filming in September 2014 and was set to finish in March 2015, but filming ultimately went into August. Why? Because the director insisted on using natural light to film, meaning that every day, the crew would have only a few hours to film. This problem was compounded by his desire to shoot the film chronologically, grinding the production to a halt.

That alone would make the production brutal, but based on extensive reports -- which the director doesn't deny -- it sounds like the director took every possible opportunity to make filming more difficult. This includes expanding an opening scene to ridiculous proportions, ballooning the budget from $90 million to $135 million, and forcing needlessly brutal stunts like dragging people through mud and submerging them in freezing water. Crew members described the experience as "a living hell."

But instead of running from these harsh criticisms, the director has embraced them. Almost every interview and discussion of the film has centered around how difficult a film it was to make. "If we ended up on a greenscreen with coffee... the film would be a piece of shit," he said in a now infamous Hollywood Reporter interview. To a certain extent, I can appreciate his sentiment, or at least appreciate his commitment to realness. The coffee remark brings up images of George Lucas merrily drinking coffee while watching actors move around in a block of blue screen for "Attack of the Clones."

However, it has been what he has been saying lately that has soured me on the film and the process behind it, as he has been talking more about the experience of filming as opposed to the film itself. He frequently has talked about "surviving" the experience, as if he was the one trekking through the wilderness. The climax of this has come with his Golden Globe acceptance speeches for Best Director. The two choice quotes were that the film was the "most difficult journey [he has] embarked on."

The discussion about how the film was made has completely overcome the film itself. Granted, he only had a few minutes to talk for each speech, but if all he wants to talk about is how difficult it was to make, then is that film worth talking about? Films are supposed to be about the stories they tell, what they have to say to us, what they accomplish or do. Given that Alejandro Iñárritu is somewhat infamous for being loud and cocky about his films and their importance, it is a strange omission.

This brings us back to Auteur Theory. Iñárritu is a filmmaker who clearly wants to be an auteur, a genius mind who makes iconic films. But for him, being an auteur is about personal greatness, not the greatness of films. When he talks about how difficult it was to make this film, how important it was to do it this way, and how hard he fought the studio, he is trying to firmly establish how great he is. "Look at the trials I put myself through! I don't cave to producers! I am an artist who suffers!"

In an era of franchises and sequels, film criticism and academia have lashed out to a certain extent, seeking to put directors who strive on a pedestal. But in that rush to find auteurs, the theory has been distorted; where auteur theory was once about filmmakers bringing personality and character to their films, it has now become more about the filmmakers themselves. We continually have let the directors of films overtake the films themselves, and the thousands of people who are also putting their hearts into it.

The film I continually thought about while think about "Revenant" is "Bridge of Spies." That film was directed by Steven Spielberg, easily the most important director alive. And yet it is a jarringly understated film, with little fanfare and modest financial success. But when it's all said and done, I believe it will be remembered as one of this year's best. It is a beautifully crafted, executed, and realized vision that tells a great story. But despite his fame, Spielberg has been incredibly quiet throughout its release. Because he didn't make this film to prove his greatness or skill, but to tell a compelling, meaningful story with likeminded artists. That is what auteur theory used to mean, or maybe should.

"The Revenant" highlights its director's strengths as well as his weaknesses. He is a technical genius with brilliant vision and a grand sense of ambition. But he seems to approach every sequence with the mindset of "What does this say about me?" as opposed to "What does this say about the character and story I am creating?" His elaborate, painful process with "The Revenant" doesn't bring any more soul to the story, but rather it brings more to the director's status and reputation. Our obsession with fighting against a producer and studio-driven Hollywood has resulted in us misusing auteur theory, losing sight about what film is about: a team of creative minds coming together to tell a story that means something to them. The difference ultimately boils down to the difference between a boss and a leader. A boss dictates their vision rigidly and expects everyone to step in line. A leader uses their vision as the drive and motivating factor while working with other great talent. For the sake of the medium, we need more leaders.