Difference between pages "Concept of Authorship (Discussion)" and "Howard Hawks as Auteur (Discussion)"

From Screenpedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search
(rm questions about productive discussion)
 
(removed questions)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Readings==
 
−
===Introduction, by John Caughie===
 
−
'''Group 1'''
 
−
#What are the basic assumptions of auteurist critics?
 
−
#How did auteurism differ from previous film criticism?
 
−
 
−
=== Edward Buscombe ===
 
−
'''Groups 2 and 3'''
 
−
#What elements of romanticism underpin auteurism?
 
−
#What is the difference between Hawks and "Hawks"?
 
−
 
−
=== Andrew Sarris ===
 
−
'''Group 4 and 5'''
 
−
#What, according to Sarris, are the three premises of the auteur theory?
 
−
#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.)
 
−
#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>
 
−
 
−
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):'''
 
−
#What was ''Movie''?
 
−
#How did ''Movie'''s approach to auteurism differ from that of ''Cahiers du Cinéma''?
 
−
 
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==
−
All from ''Theories of Authorship'', John Caughie, ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981):
+
#Andrew Sarris, ''The American Cinema'', 52-56.
−
 
+
#From ''Theories of Authorship'', John Caughie, ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981):
−
#Introduction, John Caughie, 9-16.
+
##Peter Wollen, "The Auteur Theory," 138-151.
−
#Edward Buscombe, "Ideas of Authorship," 22-34.
+
#From ''Howard Hawks American Artist'', Jim Hillier and Peter Wollen, eds., (London: British Film Institute, 1996):
−
#''Cahiers du Cinéma'', 35-47.
+
##Jacques Rivette, "The Genius of Howard Hawks," 26-31.
−
#''Movie'', 48-60.
+
##André Bazin, "How Could You Possibly be a Hitchcocko-Hawksian," 32-34.
−
#Andrew Sarris, 61-67.
+
##V. F. Perkins, "Hawks's Comedies," 68-71.
−
 
+
##Lee Russell (Peter Wollen), "Howard Hawks," 83-86.
−
==External links==
+
##Naomi Wise, "The Hawksian Woman," 111-119.
−
#[https://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T440/AuteurTheory.php Auteur Theory Illustrations]
+
##*'''Sample "Works Cited" citation according to [http://libdata.lib.ua.edu/login?url=http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ ''The Chicago Manual of Style'']:'''
−
#[https://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T340/Bazin03.php Auteurism's defining moment], according to Sarris.
+
##**Author-Date format (or you may use the "Notes and Bibliography" format):
 +
##***In the works cited: Wise, Naomi. 1996. "The Hawksian Woman." In ''Howard Hawks: American Artist'', edited by Jim Hillier and Peter Wollen, 111-119. London: British Film Institute.
 +
##***In the body of the essay: (Wise 1996, 112)
  
 
[[Category:JCM412/512 Discussion]]
 
[[Category:JCM412/512 Discussion]]
−
[[Category:TCF440/540 Discussion]]
 

Revision as of 16:32, 23 February 2020

Bibliography

  1. Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema, 52-56.
  2. From Theories of Authorship, John Caughie, ed. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981):
    1. Peter Wollen, "The Auteur Theory," 138-151.
  3. From Howard Hawks American Artist, Jim Hillier and Peter Wollen, eds., (London: British Film Institute, 1996):
    1. Jacques Rivette, "The Genius of Howard Hawks," 26-31.
    2. André Bazin, "How Could You Possibly be a Hitchcocko-Hawksian," 32-34.
    3. V. F. Perkins, "Hawks's Comedies," 68-71.
    4. Lee Russell (Peter Wollen), "Howard Hawks," 83-86.
    5. Naomi Wise, "The Hawksian Woman," 111-119.
      • Sample "Works Cited" citation according to The Chicago Manual of Style:
        • Author-Date format (or you may use the "Notes and Bibliography" format):
          • In the works cited: Wise, Naomi. 1996. "The Hawksian Woman." In Howard Hawks: American Artist, edited by Jim Hillier and Peter Wollen, 111-119. London: British Film Institute.
          • In the body of the essay: (Wise 1996, 112)
Retrieved from "https://screenpedia.org/index.php?title=Concept_of_Authorship_(Discussion)&oldid=3564"