Concept of Authorship (Discussion) - Revision history

Jeremy Butler: added auteur

2020-02-17T16:55:51Z

added auteur

Jeremy Butler: Undo revision 3560 by Jeremy Butler (talk) return

2020-02-17T16:53:48Z

Undo revision 3560 by Jeremy Butler (talk) return

Jeremy Butler: rm group questions

2020-02-14T21:01:37Z

rm group questions

Jeremy Butler: rm questions about productive discussion

2020-02-14T21:00:44Z

rm questions about productive discussion

Jeremy Butler: typo

2020-02-11T20:30:09Z

typo

Jeremy Butler at 01:25, 8 September 2019

2019-09-08T01:25:53Z

ScreenAdmin: 38 revisions imported

2019-08-14T21:31:02Z

38 revisions imported

Jeremy Butler: /* Andrew Sarris */

2019-02-18T16:21:48Z

Andrew Sarris

Jeremy Butler at 16:21, 18 February 2019

2019-02-18T16:21:16Z

Jeremy Butler: /* Andrew Sarris */ added text from Sarris

2019-02-18T16:17:30Z

Andrew Sarris: added text from Sarris

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Readings==
 ===Introduction, by John Caughie===
-'''Group 1'''
+'''Group 1 and 6'''
 #What are the basic assumptions of auteurist critics?
 #How did auteurism differ from previous film criticism?
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 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'' ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 17 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Readings==		==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 ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 14 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Readings==		==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 ==

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 #What was ''Movie''?
 #How did ''Movie'''s approach to auteurism differ from that of ''Cahiers du Cinéma''?
 == Bibliography ==

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 '''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
+#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''.)

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ==External links==
-#[http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T440/AuteurTheory.php Auteur Theory Illustrations]
+#[https://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T440/AuteurTheory.php Auteur Theory Illustrations]
-#[http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/Bazin03.php Auteurism's defining moment], according to Sarris.
+#[https://tvcrit.org/Classes/Jbutler/T340/Bazin03.php Auteurism's defining moment], according to Sarris.
 [[Category:JCM412/512 Discussion]]
 [[Category:TCF440/540 Discussion]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:31, 14 August 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 <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.
+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>