Personally, I think that postmodernism and postmodern styles of filmmaking has strengthened some aspects of auteurism (is that a word?). Postmodernism is often characterized by the combination of high art and not so high art – though that particular aspect is criticized by Barthes, I think this is an interesting way of appealing to the mainstream audience while also forcing that audience to consider filmic themes that they perhaps would not have previously considered. I think a prime example of this is Quentin Tarantino, who references B-horror films and grindhouse movies in his films which ultimately end up being highly praised by critics. This pastiche that is characteristic of postmodern films contrasts various film styles forcing viewers to consider “low art” aspects in a high art setting.
I’m also not sure I fully understand the example that is being demonstrated through the use of Deepa Mehta’s film. Is it an example of the death of the auteur or the persistence of auteurism? I think that just because a film is differently interpreted (not necessarily MISinterpreted) by different viewers, this doesn’t mean that the auteur fails in conveying a message. I think, if asked, every single person’s interpretation of 2001: A Space Odyssey or Breathless (films that are referred in the post to as auteur films) would be different. This differing of opinions doesn’t degrade the status of the films, but rather incites discussion and debate – a characteristic of any good art.