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

From Screenpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(changed groups)
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
==Study-group discussion vs. full-class discussion==
 
==Study-group discussion vs. full-class discussion==
*What is one reason why study-group discussions are a more effective teach method than class discussions?
+
*What is one reason why study-group discussions are a more effective teaching method than class discussions?
*What is one reason why full-class discussions are a more effective teach method than group discussions?
+
*What is one reason why full-class discussions are a more effective teaching method than group discussions?
  
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==

Revision as of 17:25, 19 February 2018

All Groups: What film director currently working qualifies as an "auteur"? Why?

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?
    • Explain, if you can, what Sarris means by "élan of the soul". (See Pauline Kael's criticism of this phrase below.)
  2. 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).


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?

Study-group discussion vs. full-class discussion

  • What is one reason why study-group discussions are a more effective teaching method than class discussions?
  • What is one reason why full-class discussions are a more effective teaching method than group discussions?

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.