Skip to main content

Discussion on "Death of the Author," at the New Yorker Movie Facebook Club

I've always been intrigued by the intersection (or lack thereof) of post-structuralist critiques of authorship in literary criticism (e.g. Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author") and that of auteur theory in film. To quote Barthes, "To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then allotting itself the important task of discovering the Author (or its hypostases: society, history, psyche, liberty) beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is 'explained'-- victory to the critic." Richard Brody, however, argues that in film, auteurism "adds another dimension to those criticisms"-- that it enriches criticism, contributing another lens (that of "artistic psychology") through which to evaluate a film. My question, then, is how much significance ought we give authorial/directorial psychology when evaluating a film? And to reduce a nuanced, complex discussion down to a crude dichotomy, has "the colossal gravitational pull of the director" as an object of analysis had a deleterious, eclipsing affect on film criticism, or an elucidating, beneficial one?
Edit: Richard Brody's pieces that I quoted in the post. Feel free to disagree with my interpretation/paraphrasing of them as well: 
http://www.newyorker.com/…/ric…/andrew-sarris-and-the-a-word
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/auteur-auteur

- - - -
Patrick McEvoy-Halston Brody writes that critics naturally believe scriptwriters are most important, that viewers naturally believe that actors are most fully the inventors. NATURALLY believe... hmmmm. The answer to your question might depend most fully on the context of the times. French theory "invaded" (North American) universities 1970s, I think, but as a liberal movement which is now being criticized as self-involved and self-important. The professors teaching Barthes can't themselves be seen as a confluence of influences but as ego as their predecessors--they both can and do feature in Updike novels, and a current generation looking at them couldn't really believe either set against the self as a forger of worlds. So if it were twenty years ago, I think you could be "death of the author" in a way you wouldn't likely to be now. Earlier you'd wouldn't necessarily be effacing and deliberately nurturing animas against originators, because you're intent -- ignoring Paglia on this issue -- is still genuinely constructive, to be genuinely revealing... to give people their due. Now if you do Barthes, however, with all the calls for modesty (read for example David Brooks' latest), you're more likely an enemy against whomever is really most responsible for, is the greatest inventor of, a work... be it a single person or a collection of talent, because you've come to think there's just been way too self-indulgence and its left the world a waste. If you really did the world a singularly good turn, do the right think, and let it be given due... but no more.

I really enjoyed the links. In the context of our times, for my purposes, I think you could read Sarris or Kael and encounter someone I've very glad you'd met... both would be set against where our current climate of critique will likely go.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Too late -- WE SAW your boobs

I think we're mostly familiar with ceremonies where we do anointing. Certainly, if we can imagine a context where humiliation would prove most devastating it'd probably be at a ceremony where someone thought themselves due an honor -- "Carrie," "Good Fellas." "We labored long to adore you, only so to prime your hope, your exposure … and then rather than a ladder up we descended the slops, and hoped, being smitten, you'd judged yourself worthless protoplasm -- a nothing, for letting yourselves hope you might actually be something -- due to be chuted into Hades or Hell." Ostensibly, nothing of the sort occurred during Oscars 2013, where the host, Seth Macfarlane, did a number featuring all the gorgeous Oscar-winning actresses in attendance who sometime in their careers went topless, and pointed this out to them. And it didn't -- not quite. Macarlane would claim that all obscenity would be directed back at him, for being the geek so pathetic …

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense of themse…

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…