Q1?MacCabe?Caldwell????????????????????????????????????????????MacCabe?Caldwell????????????????????? the identification of distinctions between auteurs and regular

Q1?MacCabe?Caldwell????????????????????????????????????????????MacCabe?Caldwell?????????????????????    Film authorship is a fascinating topic for discussion because it had an enormous influence on the development of the industry. MacCabe and Caldwell propose similar film authorship theories that highlight the importance of collaborative efforts but propose different explanations of the role of a director. The similarity between the theories proposed by MacCabe and Caldwell is that both authors recognize that film authorship is a process that requires collective efforts, and it is nearly impossible to analyze their contributions separately. This analysis is important because most film critics have focused on the role of a director while disregarding the influence of other individuals that also contributed to film authorship.    The difference between proposed theories is that MacCabe recognizes the role of the author and argues that “the act of the composition is the poet’s alone” (32). Differently put, MacCabe recognizes that film authorship is a collective process, but he criticizes the application of such concepts as totality and mediation when assessing authorship. MacCabe realizes that an understanding of the role of an author may help to connect the Marxist and the auteur theory. On the other hand, Caldwell believes that both collectivity and autonomy determine authorship. The author notes that “increasingly blurred authorial responsibilities within once rigidly segregated production units make this stylishness and its economic efficiency – possible” (Caldwell 231). In other words, Caldwell argues that it is impossible to determine authorship by focusing on the role of the director and believes that show runners have a responsibility to recognize the logic of collectivity.   In conclusion, the theories offered by MacCabe and Caldwell are similar and help to recognize the contributions made by all the individuals that participated in the process. Nevertheless, the central difference between these theories is that MacCabe highlights the role of a director as a factor that may help to separate the collective process and auteurship. Q3: Compare and contrast how Kael and de Valck position film critics and festival programmers, respectively, as the professions that decide which directors are auteurs and which are not. Application of the auteur theory in film criticism has been controversial because both supporters and opponents of the theory provide reasonable arguments. Nevertheless, it has to be recognized that some of the professions have focused on the identification of distinctions between auteurs and regular directors. The primary argument is that the articles written by Kael and de Valck suggest that movie critics and festival programmers should consider different factors when determining whether a particular director is auteurs or not.  ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”???????????????????? prestigiator”  ???15???????????????????????????????·????????????????????????????????????????????·????De Valck  ??????????” ????????????????????” ?78?????????????????????????????????????????  ????????Valck?????????????????????auteurs??????????????

x

Hi!
I'm Dominick!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out
x

Hi!
I'm Dominick!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out