From: "Bill Flavell" <billflavell3-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: ft-l: La Politique des Auteurs
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 09:58:54 PST



   Brett wrote:

>But to get back to the issues Bill raises in bringing forward the 
question
>of canonization, and concurrently, mise-en-scene theory.  While he may 
be
>right that different elements of film intersect at the level of
>mise-en-scene, historically, this form of criticism has been closely 
linked
>to auteurism,

   Incorrectly, IMO, and the mis-interpretation of la politique des
auteurs has unfairly cast aspersions on the concept of mise en scene and 
it's significance to film criticism and theory. Please read the essay 
'L'Evidence' by William D. Routt (URL:

   http://kali.murdoch.edu.au/cntinuum/5.2/Routt.html )

   ...and then let us know what you think.

> a view which looks at film in terms of the "great man" or
>"expressive" theory of art, which dates back to romanticism.

   That's a complete mis-understanding of la politique des
auteurs, IMO.

> The problem
>with this, for me, is that it ignores culture, context, nation, 
ideology,
>history, genre, class, race, political economy etc.

   How can it, when all of those things affect the film's style? I agree 
that those areas need more close and concrete analysis, but to 
completely ignore the film's style is also unacceptable, IMO.

>  In short, all the stuff
>that makes a Godard or, dare I say, a Cronenberg, possible.  Film text,
>style, and mise-en-scene etc. are marvellous objects of study but what 
gives
>them meaning is their relation to external factors.

   True, in the sense that if the mise en scene is extremely boring, 
your mind will wander to the sociological and socio-economic "plane", as 
mine did recently with the beginning of Dead Man. All I could think 
about is how quickly Jarmusch has "sold out" and what having an A-list 
actor does to a new director's filmmaking style. But it was so boring 
that I bailed out during the first sequence and looked at something 
else.

   Certainly, a film is "multi-layered", but a "real" anthropological 
documentary would probably be a lot more interesting than either 
Godard's or Cronenberg's re-hashes. I also bailed out on Cronenberg's 
Naked Lunch during the first sequence, because the set decoration was so 
phony it completely ruined the reality of the film for me. I guess I'm 
too jaded.

>  To understand what film
>truly is requires an appreciation of its function in the larger scheme 
of
>things.  The tendency of auteurism is towards discussions about who is 
the
>better auteur, and to rank artists like sports heros. It's a waste of 
time.

   Maybe, but so is trying to see the "ouvre" of directors who don't 
have the slightest specifically cinematic talent or instinct. In the 
sense that "pantheons" give some kind of indication as to which 
directors are worth wasting your time watching, I think they're 
valuable. But, unfortunately, the people who create the pantheons 
probably haven't seen a broad enough spectrum of films to be qualified 
to judge. So we get the cliched, conventional academic laundry lists.

   Bill Flavell 

   

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---