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

From Screenpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: ==Readings== === Andrew Sarris === #How does Sarris characterize Hawks' visual style? #What does Sarris mean by "professionalism" and how have we seen that in Hawks's films? ===Peter Woll...)
 
(added group assignments)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Readings==
 
==Readings==
 
=== Andrew Sarris ===
 
=== Andrew Sarris ===
 +
'''Group 2'''
 
#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?
  
 
===Peter Wollen===
 
===Peter Wollen===
−
 
 
#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. Discuss what he means by this.
−
#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?)?
+
#'''All Groups:''' 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?)?
  
 
===Jacques Rivette===
 
===Jacques Rivette===
−
#What is the relationship of Hawks's comedies and dramas?
+
#'''All Groups:''' What is the relationship of Hawks's comedies and dramas?
  
 
===André Bazin===
 
===André Bazin===
−
 
+
#'''All Groups:''' How does Bazin defend the auteurist emphasis on the director?
−
#How does Bazin defend the auteurist emphasis on the director?
 
  
 
===V. F. Perkins===
 
===V. F. Perkins===
 +
'''Group 3'''
 
#What function does language serve in Hawks's comedies?
 
#What function does language serve in Hawks's comedies?
  
 
===Lee Russell (Peter Wollen)===
 
===Lee Russell (Peter Wollen)===
 +
'''Group 4'''
 
#How does Russell characterize the Hawksian group?
 
#How does Russell characterize the Hawksian group?
 
#What aspects of Hawksian "professionalism" does Russell discuss?
 
#What aspects of Hawksian "professionalism" does Russell discuss?
  
 
===Naomi Wise===
 
===Naomi Wise===
−
#Wise sees Bonnie Lee in ''Only Angels Have Wings'' as the quintessential "Hawksian woman." What characteristics does she see associated with the Hawksian woman?
+
#'''Grad Group:''' 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?
+
#'''Group 1:''' 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?
−
#In the end, Wise claims that "a central theme throughout Hawks is the shedding of sexual roles" (118).  Do you agree?
+
#'''Grad Group AND Group 1:''' In the end, Wise claims that "a central theme throughout Hawks is the shedding of sexual roles" (118).  Do you agree?
  
 
== Bibliography ==
 
== Bibliography ==
Line 40: Line 41:
 
##Naomi Wise, "The Hawksian Woman," 111-119.
 
##Naomi Wise, "The Hawksian Woman," 111-119.
  
−
[[Category:TCF440/540]]
+
[[Category:TCF440-540]]
−
[[Category:TCF440/540 Discussion]]
+
[[Category:TCF440-540 Discussion]]

Revision as of 15:21, 25 February 2008

Readings

Andrew Sarris

Group 2

  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?

Peter Wollen

  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. Discuss what he means by this.
  2. All Groups: 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?)?

Jacques Rivette

  1. All Groups: What is the relationship of Hawks's comedies and dramas?

André Bazin

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

V. F. Perkins

Group 3

  1. What function does language serve in Hawks's comedies?

Lee Russell (Peter Wollen)

Group 4

  1. How does Russell characterize the Hawksian group?
  2. What aspects of Hawksian "professionalism" does Russell discuss?

Naomi Wise

  1. Grad Group: 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. Group 1: 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?
  3. Grad Group AND Group 1: In the end, Wise claims that "a central theme throughout Hawks is the shedding of sexual roles" (118). Do you agree?

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.
Retrieved from "https://screenpedia.org/index.php?title=Howard_Hawks_as_Auteur_(Discussion)&oldid=749"