ANY ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AUTEURS AND in cinema immediately brings to mind clown-like figures played by Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Jerry Lewis, and Woody Allen, all of whom incarnate similar characters across a vast array of films and in addition direct all or many of pictures in which they perform. Common to these fools is their recurring features and a certain foreignness that posits them as outsiders. In words of Bakhtin, who theorized about fool in literature, this figure is endowed with to be 'other,' the right not to understand, right to confuse (159, 163), thus becoming mask that author wears in order to freely question world, to denaturalize it. This, after all, is nature of all comedy. But fool's inherent marginality goes beyond this figure's subversive attitude, as I argue in this article. The fool's misplacement or inappropriateness can be traced back to its origins in performing arts-to intermittent quality of fool's presence in some traditions in popular theater (its role limited to providing comic relief or commentary on main action) or as bridge between different numbers in circus or in variety shows.1 As thus, fool often has been perceived as a temporary visitor, as an outsider to diegesis, existing between show and audience. Bakhtin's study of fool in novel goes even further, claiming that this figure's theatrical genesis (it originates in public square) positions it as an intruder to literary genre, thereby bridging also different media (as discussed later). Similarly, I argue that when read through figure of fool, types of authorial self-inscription I analyze in cinematic works constitute directors as external to diegesis, crossing, in addition, boundaries of genre and even frame. I contrast ways in which played by Woody Allen and Jean-Luc Godard turn author's image into textual manifestation of problematic connection between their real existence and their screen personas. My goal is to explore how these directors achieve this effect with performances informed by both fool and, in works of American filmmaker, stand-up comedian. These two figures are somewhat external to worlds they inhabit and comment on, refusing to fully merge with it. I look into impact of this refusal on film-author mixture, questioning whether it produces chemical precipitation or dissolution of author component. The fool's subversive nature carries a selfreflexive element that, though pertaining to all clown-like characters played by famous directors, varies in degree, obtaining different perceptions of narrative closure and connections between filmic and extra-filmic. But it is particularly in works by Allen that fool's foreignness has repercussion in question of film authorship that I want to discuss. The director promotes a self-reflexive meditation that dialogues with challenges to auteur brought about with structuralist turn in film studies. In fact, I argue that effects produced by Allen's screen performances make him comparable not so much with usual suspects of slapstick and screwball comedy, but with none other than Godard, whose career parallels theoretical underpinnings of film studies, from auteurism to its total dismissal, culminating with film collectives of late 1960s, and also influence of semiotics, Marxism, feminism, and psychoanalysis. Here, however, terms of comparison with Allen lie with Godard's appearances in some films of 1980s-notably as buffoonish characters of Uncle Jean/Monsieur Godard in First Name: Carmen (1983), Prince/the Idiot in Soigne ta droite (1987), and Professor Pluggy/Monsieur Godard in King Lear (1987). I argue that these embody director's understanding of his identity as an author. …