Difference between revisions of "Howard Hawks as Auteur (Discussion)"

From Screenpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(added student responses)
(Undo revision 3564 by Jeremy Butler (talk))
Tag: Undo
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Andrew Sarris, ''The American Cinema'' ==
 
== Andrew Sarris, ''The American Cinema'' ==
−
'''Group 3'''
 
 
#How does Sarris characterize Hawks' visual style?
 
#How does Sarris characterize Hawks' visual style?
−
#What does Sarris mean by "professionalism" and how have we seen that in Hawks's films?
+
#What does Sarris mean by "professionalism" and how have we seen that in Hawks's films (not ''His Girl Friday'')?
−
#*'''Student response:''' For Hawks, professionalism defines a man's masculinity. The Hero in Hawks' films pride themselves on their professionalism. How good they are at what they do. In only Angels Have Wings, Geoff Carter is a pilot who's only focused on doing his job well and is fully committed to it under any circumstances. (Especially a woman).
 
−
 
 
−
==Peter Wollen (in ''Theories of Authorship'')==
 
−
'''All Groups:'''
 
  
 +
==Peter Wollen (in John Caughie, ed., ''Theories of Authorship'')==
 
#Wollen writes, "...by a process of comparison with other films, it is possible to decipher...a structure which underlies the film and shapes it....  It is this structure which ''auteur'' analysis disengages from the film" (146).
 
#Wollen writes, "...by a process of comparison with other films, it is possible to decipher...a structure which underlies the film and shapes it....  It is this structure which ''auteur'' analysis disengages from the film" (146).
−
#*What does he mean by a "structure"? On the next page, he puts "Hawks" in quotation marks and refers to it (him?) as a structure. Discuss what he means by this.
+
#*What does he mean by a "structure"? On the next page, he puts "Hawks" in quotation marks and refers to it (him?) as a structure. (Remember: Edward Buscombe quoted Wollen in last week's readings.)
−
#A lot of this essay contrasts the work of Howard Hawks with that of John Ford. What "master antinomy" does Wollen seen in Ford's work (what what does "antinomy" mean?)?
+
#A lot of this essay contrasts the work of Howard Hawks with that of John Ford. What "master antinomy" does Wollen see in Ford's work (and what does "antinomy" mean?)?
  
 
==From ''Howard Hawks American Artist''==
 
==From ''Howard Hawks American Artist''==
−
===Jacques Rivette===
 
−
'''All Groups:'''
 
−
#What is the relationship of Hawks's comedies and dramas?
 
−
 
−
===André Bazin===
 
−
'''Group 4:'''
 
−
#How does Bazin defend the auteurist emphasis on the director?
 
−
 
 
===V. F. Perkins===
 
===V. F. Perkins===
−
'''Group 4:'''
+
#What function does language serve in Hawks's comedies? How is that evident in ''Ball of Fire''?
−
#What function does language serve in Hawks's comedies?
+
#How does Hawks use humiliation in his comedies? How is that evident in ''Ball of Fire''?
−
#*'''Student response:''' According to Perkins, language brings confusion, not comprehension. Words are used to foil a person asking a question, and make them feel confused about their own inquiry. In Ball of Fire, verbal language brought on confusion for the Professor who was trying to discover slang meaning, but when it came to the relationship between Sugarpuss and the Professor, body language was more evident - even though the Professor was always searching for the right words to define his feelings.
 
  
 
===Lee Russell (Peter Wollen)===
 
===Lee Russell (Peter Wollen)===
−
'''Group 1:'''
 
 
#How does Russell characterize the Hawksian group?
 
#How does Russell characterize the Hawksian group?
−
#*'''Student Response:''' Russell describes the most vital social group in a Hawks' film as "exclusive, self-sufficient, [and] all-male." They are united by their profession, which is typically a stereotypically manly pursuit. Members of the group must excel at what they do, and once a member of this group, the only way to lose membership is to violate the group's code. In Only Angels Have Wings, the pilots are this close-yet-stoical all-male group. They live by certain rules, such as not speaking of pilots who have died, blaming pilot death on "not being good enough"--tactics to build up the pilots' courage. And failings of courage violate the code, as was the case with the pilot who bailed out of his plane but left his mechanic to die. His only way to reenter the group comes with a dramatic display of bravery.
 
 
#What aspects of Hawksian "professionalism" does Russell discuss?
 
#What aspects of Hawksian "professionalism" does Russell discuss?
 +
#What does he believe are the two principal themes of Hawks's comedies?
  
 
===Naomi Wise===
 
===Naomi Wise===
−
'''Group 2:'''
 
 
#Wise sees Bonnie Lee in ''Only Angels Have Wings'' as the quintessential "Hawksian woman." What characteristics does she see associated with the Hawksian woman?
 
#Wise sees Bonnie Lee in ''Only Angels Have Wings'' as the quintessential "Hawksian woman." What characteristics does she see associated with the Hawksian woman?
−
#Wise maintains that Hawks's films "frequently show a merging of sexual roles for the benefit of both sexes" (113).  What does she mean by this? Have you seen evidence for this in the films we've watched?
+
#Wise maintains that Hawks's films "frequently show a merging of sexual roles for the benefit of both sexes" (113).  What does she mean by this? Have you seen evidence for this in the films we've watched (not ''His Girl Friday'')?
−
#*'''Student response:''' Naomi Wise’s meaning, as she states, is that “the women learn certain ‘masculine’ values while the men become ‘feminized’.”, and that, “Frequently, the men have more to learn (and gain) than the women, who are already mature at each film’s beginning…..The men tend to suffer from emotional blocks that keep them from full self-realization, while the women need merely to adjust to a particular situation.” I’ve seen some of this evident in films such as Ball of Fire, with the presence of Sugarpuss causing the professors to adjust, and essentially, learn a new way of dealing and interacting with her presence so out of the ordinary for them. This is also prominent in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, where merely everywhere the women go throughout the film, they have a profound effect on the men from their beauty and charisma.
+
#In the end, Wise claims that "a central theme throughout Hawks is the shedding of sexual roles" (118). Do you agree?
−
#In the end, Wise claims that "a central theme throughout Hawks is the shedding of sexual roles" (118). Do you agree?
+
 
 +
===Jacques Rivette===
 +
#According to Rivette, what is the relationship of Hawks's comedies and dramas? (It differs from what was discussed in lecture.)
 +
#Rivette claims that Hawks "sticks to the same story--the intrusion of the inhuman... into a highly civilized society." Do you agree? Have you seen this in the films we've watched?
 +
 
 +
===André Bazin===
 +
#How does Bazin defend the auteurist emphasis on the director?
  
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==
Line 49: Line 40:
 
##Lee Russell (Peter Wollen), "Howard Hawks," 83-86.
 
##Lee Russell (Peter Wollen), "Howard Hawks," 83-86.
 
##Naomi Wise, "The Hawksian Woman," 111-119.
 
##Naomi Wise, "The Hawksian Woman," 111-119.
 +
##*'''Sample "Works Cited" citation according to [http://libdata.lib.ua.edu/login?url=http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ ''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)
  
−
[[Category:TCF440/540 Discussion]]
+
[[Category:JCM412/512 Discussion]]

Latest revision as of 19:17, 24 February 2020

Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema

  1. How does Sarris characterize Hawks' visual style?
  2. What does Sarris mean by "professionalism" and how have we seen that in Hawks's films (not His Girl Friday)?

Peter Wollen (in John Caughie, ed., Theories of Authorship)

  1. Wollen writes, "...by a process of comparison with other films, it is possible to decipher...a structure which underlies the film and shapes it.... It is this structure which auteur analysis disengages from the film" (146).
    • What does he mean by a "structure"? On the next page, he puts "Hawks" in quotation marks and refers to it (him?) as a structure. (Remember: Edward Buscombe quoted Wollen in last week's readings.)
  2. A lot of this essay contrasts the work of Howard Hawks with that of John Ford. What "master antinomy" does Wollen see in Ford's work (and what does "antinomy" mean?)?

From Howard Hawks American Artist

V. F. Perkins

  1. What function does language serve in Hawks's comedies? How is that evident in Ball of Fire?
  2. How does Hawks use humiliation in his comedies? How is that evident in Ball of Fire?

Lee Russell (Peter Wollen)

  1. How does Russell characterize the Hawksian group?
  2. What aspects of Hawksian "professionalism" does Russell discuss?
  3. What does he believe are the two principal themes of Hawks's comedies?

Naomi Wise

  1. Wise sees Bonnie Lee in Only Angels Have Wings as the quintessential "Hawksian woman." What characteristics does she see associated with the Hawksian woman?
  2. Wise maintains that Hawks's films "frequently show a merging of sexual roles for the benefit of both sexes" (113). What does she mean by this? Have you seen evidence for this in the films we've watched (not His Girl Friday)?
  3. In the end, Wise claims that "a central theme throughout Hawks is the shedding of sexual roles" (118). Do you agree?

Jacques Rivette

  1. According to Rivette, what is the relationship of Hawks's comedies and dramas? (It differs from what was discussed in lecture.)
  2. Rivette claims that Hawks "sticks to the same story--the intrusion of the inhuman... into a highly civilized society." Do you agree? Have you seen this in the films we've watched?

André Bazin

  1. How does Bazin defend the auteurist emphasis on the director?

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=Howard_Hawks_as_Auteur_(Discussion)&oldid=3565"