Difference between pages "JCM412512/Analytical Exercise (Discussion)" and "Concept of Authorship (Discussion)"

From Screenpedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(rm questions about productive discussion)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
#''Briefly'' describe the mise-en-scene of the scene in which Sugarpuss kisses Bertram the ''second'' time (see illustrations below and [https://vimeo.com/345054295 this online clip]).  How does mise-en-scene function in term of the narrative? That is, how does it help to build the characters and their relationship?  Be sure to discuss setting, costume, lighting, and the positioning of the actors. (15 points)
+
==Readings==
−
#Based on [http://www.tcf.ua.edu/EO/DV/BallOfFire02big.php the "second kiss" scene] from question #1, draw a single diagram of the professors' work room from an overhead, "bird's eye" view.  Indicate the main camera and actor positions. Label the camera positions for shot "1," "2," etc.--similar to ''Television'''s 180-degree diagram, but do ''not'' include the side-view frames of the people (below). Be sure to account for all 14 shots. Does the editing adhere to the 180 degree system?  Explain.
+
===Introduction, by John Caughie===
−
#Explain in your own words what the concept of "sound perspective" means. How would you describe the sound perspective in the "second kiss" scene? Judging from how it sounds, what conventional position of the microphone was used? Explain.
+
'''Group 1'''
−
#What is the central narrative enigma of ''Ball of Fire''? Comparing the film's beginning and ending, how is that enigma posed to the viewer and is it resolved or not at the end?
+
#What are the basic assumptions of auteurist critics?
−
#How do the story time and the screen time of ''Ball of Fire'' differ in order and duration?
+
#How did auteurism differ from previous film criticism?
−
#Does ''Ball of Fire'' follow the narrative conventions of classical cinema—its narrative form, as the ''Television'' textbook explains it? Refer to  individual scenes to discuss these aspects of classical cinema:
 
−
#*Single protagonist
 
−
#*Exposition
 
−
#*Motivation
 
−
#*Narrative enigma
 
−
#*Cause-effect chain
 
−
#*Climax
 
−
#*Resolution/Denouement
 
−
#In one shot (below), Bertram speaks with Sugarpuss. Note: This shot is ''not'' from the scene of the second kiss, which is to be used in the mise-en-scene and editing questions. Discuss the cinematography (especially camera angle, framing and depth of field) of this shot in terms of how it supports the narrative.
 
  
−
==The "Second Kiss" Scene: Questions 1, 2, and 3==
+
=== Edward Buscombe ===
 +
'''Groups 2 and 3'''
 +
#What elements of romanticism underpin auteurism?
 +
#What is the difference between Hawks and "Hawks"?
  
−
<gallery mode="packed" heights=200px>
+
=== Andrew Sarris ===
−
File:BallOfFire001.jpg|alt=''Ball of Fire'' screen shot.|First shot.
+
'''Group 4 and 5'''
−
File:BallOfFire003.jpg|alt=''Ball of Fire'' screen shot.|
+
#What, according to Sarris, are the three premises of the auteur theory?
−
File:BallOfFire004.jpg|alt=''Ball of Fire'' screen shot.|
+
#From "Notes on the Auteur Theory," but not in the excerpt: "The three premises of the auteur theory may be visualized as three concentric circles, the outer circle as technique, the middle circle personal style, and the inner circle interior meaning."
−
File:BallOfFire006.jpg|alt=''Ball of Fire'' screen shot.|Last shot begins.
+
#*Explain, if you can, what Sarris means by "élan of the soul". (See Pauline Kael's criticism of this phrase below.)
−
File:BallOfFire028.jpg|alt=''Ball of Fire'' screen shot.|Last shot ends.
+
#What does Sarris mean when he uses the term "mise-en-scene"? ('''Hint''': it's ''not'' how it's used in ''Television''.)
 +
#*And how does this image (below) illustrate it?
 +
<gallery mode="packed" heights=400px>
 +
File:Rules Moment07.jpg|alt=Jean Renoir in ''Rules of the Game'' (French title: ''La Règle du jeu'').|Jean Renoir in ''Rules of the Game'' (French title: ''La Règle du jeu'').
 +
File:Sarris - Notes - Circles.jpg|alt=Andrew Sarris, "Notes on the Auteur Theory," Film Culture, No. 27 (Winter 1962/3), 7.|Andrew Sarris, "Notes on the Auteur Theory," ''Film Culture'', No. 27 (Winter 1962/3), 7.
 
</gallery>
 
</gallery>
  
−
==Bertram and Sugarpuss talking: Question 7 only ==
+
Pauline Kael, "Circles and Squares," ''Film Quarterly'' (reprinted in ''I Lost It at the Movies''), response to Sarris:
−
<gallery mode="packed" heights=200px>
+
: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.
−
File:Fig09-05 180 Degree.jpg|alt=180-Degree Diagram from ''Television''.|180-Degree Diagram from ''Television''.
+
 
−
File:BallOfFire035.jpg|alt=''Ball of Fire'' screen shot.|Sugarpuss and Bertram's ''first'' encounter in the professors' work room. Click image to enlarge.
+
=== ''Movie'' ===
−
</gallery>
+
'''All groups (after you've answered the questions above):'''
 +
#What was ''Movie''?
 +
#How did ''Movie'''s approach to auteurism differ from that of ''Cahiers du Cinéma''?
  
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==
−
#Jeremy G. Butler, ''Television: Critical Methods and Applications'' (New York: Routledge, 2012).
+
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://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T440/AnalExIllustrations.htm Analytical Exercise examples]
+
#[https://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T440/AuteurTheory.php Auteur Theory Illustrations]
−
#*[https://vimeo.com/345054295 Sugarpuss and Bertram's second kiss (video clip).]
+
#[https://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T340/Bazin03.php Auteurism's defining moment], according to Sarris.
  
 
[[Category:JCM412/512 Discussion]]
 
[[Category:JCM412/512 Discussion]]
 +
[[Category:TCF440/540 Discussion]]

Revision as of 21:00, 14 February 2020

Readings

Introduction, by John Caughie

Group 1

  1. What are the basic assumptions of auteurist critics?
  2. How did auteurism differ from previous film criticism?

Edward Buscombe

Groups 2 and 3

  1. What elements of romanticism underpin auteurism?
  2. What is the difference between Hawks and "Hawks"?

Andrew Sarris

Group 4 and 5

  1. What, according to Sarris, are the three premises of the auteur theory?
  2. From "Notes on the Auteur Theory," but not in the excerpt: "The three premises of the auteur theory may be visualized as three concentric circles, the outer circle as technique, the middle circle personal style, and the inner circle interior meaning."
    • Explain, if you can, what Sarris means by "élan of the soul". (See Pauline Kael's criticism of this phrase below.)
  3. What does Sarris mean when he uses the term "mise-en-scene"? (Hint: it's not how it's used in Television.)
    • And how does this image (below) illustrate it?
  • Jean Renoir in Rules of the Game (French title: La Règle du jeu).

    Jean Renoir in Rules of the Game (French title: La Règle du jeu).

  • Andrew Sarris, "Notes on the Auteur Theory," Film Culture, No. 27 (Winter 1962/3), 7.

    Andrew Sarris, "Notes on the Auteur Theory," Film Culture, No. 27 (Winter 1962/3), 7.

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.

Movie

All groups (after you've answered the questions above):

  1. What was Movie?
  2. How did Movie's approach to auteurism differ from that of Cahiers du Cinéma?

Bibliography

All from Theories of Authorship, John Caughie, ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981):

  1. Introduction, John Caughie, 9-16.
  2. Edward Buscombe, "Ideas of Authorship," 22-34.
  3. Cahiers du Cinéma, 35-47.
  4. Movie, 48-60.
  5. Andrew Sarris, 61-67.

External links

  1. Auteur Theory Illustrations
  2. Auteurism's defining moment, according to Sarris.
Retrieved from "https://screenpedia.org/index.php?title=JCM412512/Analytical_Exercise_(Discussion)&oldid=3559"