Difference between revisions of "Concept of Authorship (Discussion)"

From Screenpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(reorded groups)
(Added Kael quoteation)
Line 31: Line 31:
 
<br style="clear: both;">
 
<br style="clear: both;">
  
Pauline Kael, ''I Lost It at the Movies'', response to Sarris:
+
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 ==

Revision as of 16:48, 16 February 2009

Readings

Introduction, by John Caughie

Group 2

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

Edward Buscombe

Group 3

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

Cahiers du Cinéma

All Groups

  1. What is "formalism" and how did it relate to Cahiers-style auteurism?
  2. What is "personalism"?

Movie

Group 4

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

Andrew Sarris

Group 1

  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

  1. 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?
Jean Renoir in Rules of the Game (French title: La Règle du jeu).


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):

  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.