Difference between pages "Beyond and Beside Narrative (Discussion)" and "Concept of Authorship (Discussion)"
From Screenpedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | ==Readings== |
| − | + | ===Introduction, by John Caughie=== | |
| − | + | '''Group 2''' | |
| − | + | #What are the basic assumptions of auteurist critics? | |
| − | + | #How did auteurism differ from previous film criticism? | |
| − | |||
| − | == | + | === Edward Buscombe === |
| − | + | '''Group 3''' | |
| + | #What elements of romanticism underpin auteurism? | ||
| + | #What is the difference between Hawks and "Hawks"? | ||
| − | + | === ''Cahiers du Cinéma'' === | |
| + | '''All Groups''' | ||
| + | #What is "formalism" and how did it relate to ''Cahiers''-style auteurism? | ||
| + | #What is "personalism"? | ||
| − | + | === ''Movie'' === | |
| − | + | '''Group 4''' | |
| − | #''' | + | #What was ''Movie''? |
| − | + | #How did ''Movie'''s approach to auteurism differ from that of ''Cahiers du Cinéma''? | |
| − | == | + | === Andrew Sarris === |
| − | + | '''Group 1''' | |
| + | #What, according to Sarris, are the three premises of the auteur theory? | ||
| + | #*Explain, if you can, what Sarris means by "élan of the soul". | ||
| − | + | '''All Groups''' | |
| + | #What does Sarris mean when he uses the term "mise-en-scene"? ('''Hint''': it's ''not'' how Bordwell and Thompson use it in ''Film Art''.) | ||
| + | #*And how does this image (below) illustrate it? | ||
| + | [[Image:Rules Moment07.jpg|thumb|left|Jean Renoir in ''Rules of the Game'' (French title: ''La Règle du jeu'').]] | ||
| + | <br style="clear: both;"> | ||
| − | + | Pauline Kael, "Circles and Squares," ''Film Quarterly'' (reprinted in ''I Lost It at the Movies''), response to Sarris: | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | :Sarris believes that what makes an auteur is "an élan of the soul." (This critical language is barbarous. Where else should élan come from? It's like saying "a digestion of the stomach." A film critic need not be a theoretician, but it is necessary that he know how to use words. This might, indeed, be a first premise for a theory.) Those who have this élan presumably have it forever and their films reveal the "organic unity" of the directors' careers; and those who don't have it - well, they can only make "actors' classics." It's ironic that a critic trying to establish simple "objective" rules as a guide for critics who he thinks aren't gifted enough to use taste and intelligence, ends up - where, actually, he began - with a theory based on mystical insight. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Bibliography == | == Bibliography == | ||
| − | + | All from ''Theories of Authorship'', John Caughie, ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981): | |
| − | + | #Introduction, John Caughie, 9-16. | |
| − | + | #Edward Buscombe, "Ideas of Authorship," 22-34. | |
| + | #''Cahiers du Cinéma'', 35-47. | ||
| + | #''Movie'', 48-60. | ||
| + | #Andrew Sarris, 61-67. | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| − | + | #[http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T440/AuteurTheory.htm Auteur Theory Illustrations] | |
| − | + | #[http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/Bazin03.htm Auteurism's defining moment], according to Sarris. | |
| − | |||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:TCF440/540 Discussion]] |
| − | |||
Revision as of 16:49, 16 February 2009
Readings
Introduction, by John Caughie
Group 2
- What are the basic assumptions of auteurist critics?
- How did auteurism differ from previous film criticism?
Edward Buscombe
Group 3
- What elements of romanticism underpin auteurism?
- What is the difference between Hawks and "Hawks"?
Cahiers du Cinéma
All Groups
- What is "formalism" and how did it relate to Cahiers-style auteurism?
- What is "personalism"?
Movie
Group 4
- What was Movie?
- How did Movie's approach to auteurism differ from that of Cahiers du Cinéma?
Andrew Sarris
Group 1
- What, according to Sarris, are the three premises of the auteur theory?
- Explain, if you can, what Sarris means by "élan of the soul".
All Groups
- What does Sarris mean when he uses the term "mise-en-scene"? (Hint: it's not how Bordwell and Thompson use it in Film Art.)
- And how does this image (below) illustrate it?
Pauline Kael, "Circles and Squares," Film Quarterly (reprinted in I Lost It at the Movies), response to Sarris:
- Sarris believes that what makes an auteur is "an élan of the soul." (This critical language is barbarous. Where else should élan come from? It's like saying "a digestion of the stomach." A film critic need not be a theoretician, but it is necessary that he know how to use words. This might, indeed, be a first premise for a theory.) Those who have this élan presumably have it forever and their films reveal the "organic unity" of the directors' careers; and those who don't have it - well, they can only make "actors' classics." It's ironic that a critic trying to establish simple "objective" rules as a guide for critics who he thinks aren't gifted enough to use taste and intelligence, ends up - where, actually, he began - with a theory based on mystical insight.
Bibliography
All from Theories of Authorship, John Caughie, ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981):
- Introduction, John Caughie, 9-16.
- Edward Buscombe, "Ideas of Authorship," 22-34.
- Cahiers du Cinéma, 35-47.
- Movie, 48-60.
- Andrew Sarris, 61-67.
External links
- Auteur Theory Illustrations
- Auteurism's defining moment, according to Sarris.
