According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, there are five
propositions that enable a person to critique a poem, or written work. My
interpretations of them are: The first is that a person creates a poem, the
poem should not create intellect, or rewrite the wheel. Second, a poem is only
successful if a critic understands what a poem is trying to accomplish, if he
has to go outside the poem, it isn’t successful. Third, a poem must make sense
for it to even work. If someone cannot understand the words, then it has no
benefit. Fourth, a poem can be the creation of the author spoken with their
beliefs, however a poem should be more objective. The author is just the
creator, in order for it work, the speaker must be able to make sense of it.
Finally, if an author ever writes a revision, it’s only because he is trying to
write a better work than then previous one (Beardsley & Wimsatt, 1946).
According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, the intentional fallacy
is created when a critic takes into consideration where the author is coming
from when they create the work. This is creating a fallacy, a work should stand
on it’s own and be able to have the message told without placing yourself in
the author’s shoes. Critics create the intentional fallacy by understanding, or
attempting to understand the state of mind of the author. According to Wimsatt
and Beadsley, the author is only a biological act of interference (Beardsley
& Wimsatt, 1946).
I have mixed feelings on the intentional fallacy. I
understand that the poem should be objective in order for people to understand
it, but where does creativity and imagination come in to play? Bearsley &
Wimsatt compared the poem to a machine, and I believe the two are nothing
alike. A poem is a work of art by the author so in a sense it can be left up to
interpretation if that is what the author would like, but a machine only has
one way to work. The two really cannot be compared. I think in a poem, there is a flexibility
with being creative and have the work left up to the readers interpretation,
but perhaps when writing a novel or a more educational book, you have to be
objective.
Stoddart
- What are the origins of the auteur theory? What were some early critiques of
this theory? How has the theory changed over time? How does the audience
"author" a text?
Originally shaped by Andrew Sarris, auteur theory “values
the personality of the director precisely because of the barriers to its
expression” (Stoddart, 1995, p. 42). Sarris explained auteur theory through
three different circles, which stood for the intersection between the auteur’s
technique, style and interior meaning. Basically, the author of the film is the
director as they “create” the film and the message through their style of
directing including camera angles, shooting style and technique. Acorrding to
Alexis Carreiro, in Script to Screen
Introduction, the auteur theory says that great films come from great
directors, and they incorporate a signature style across their films.
An origin of the auteur theory according to Stoddart comes
from the 1930’s when the social status of film was compared to an art form.
“The first writings on film authorship constituted an attempt by French
intellectuals to recuperate film from its designation as merely a commercial
and industrial enterprise, to incorporate it into the ranks of classical art
(Stoddart, 1995, p. 39)
An early critique of auteur theory, Stoddart says that
Cahier’s claims of auteur status neglected the commercial and industrial
origins of film production. The attention was paid to what made the director’s
film personal and unique, and not what made films popular (Stoddart, 1995, p.
41). Also, since the advent of the
auteur theory, the theory has changed into more of a collaborative approach.
According to Carreiro, collaborative authorship studies explore Hollywood
filmmaking as a process among several key workers, including the directors,
screenwriters, producers, cinematographers, etc. (Carreiro, 2010, p. 3)
I believe an audience author’s a text because they place
themselves in it. When I read a text or watch a film, I become that character.
I develop their sense of being and with each move in the plot I place myself in
their situation.
(This
question relates to Carreiro's article and will require you to look beyond the
readings for your answer.) What key collaborations/collaborators (in film, tv,
music, art, etc?) do you believe deserve co-author credit? Why? What empirical
evidence would you use/gather to make this co-author argument?
As far as collaborations as film, I immediately thought back
to the film Avatar. With all of it’s hype when it was released in 2009, all I
heard was the name, James Cameron. Cameron was both the writer and director of
the film, but with the style of cutting and editing, I would think the editor would
deserve more credit as well. After researching the film Avatar, I finally found
the editors were: James Cameron, Stephen E. Rivkin and John Refoua. Personally,
I have never heard of the last two. From my understanding of what goes into the
process of creating a film, and the fact that Avatar was such a blockbuster and
the first of it’s kind, I would think there should be recognition to the
editing role. James Cameron takes over all of it since he was the writer and
director, but he is also listed as a co-editor, pretty much taking all of the
credit for the film. For my understanding of how the editors and directors
collaborate together to make the film, I think it may be a little far fetched
that he was given then title of co-editor as well. If that’s the case, then are
all directors titled co-editors also?
Also, in the music field, there are a lot of collaborations
that simply don’t even give credit to the other person in the song. For
example, Flo Rida’s hit song “Right Round” released in 2009 with Ke$sha vocals.
At the time of the release, Ke$sha was not credited although her voice is
throughout the song.
What questions/critiques do the readings raise
for you?
As far as critiques from the readings, I do not fully agree
with the intentional fallacy in regards to a poem. I think a poem can by very
subjective, similar to a piece of art. Some people will understand it, some
won’t, and other can take different things from it. People are not wired to
think the same. I also raise the question, where does the screenwriter come
into play on a film? I would think where the film idea was originally
conceived, and the writer would have a huge collaboration to the work as well.
As Carreiro stated, it seems the director is the one everyone answers to, so
that is why the director is the most known, besides the actors, in the film.
References
Beardsley, M. C., & Wimsatt, W. K. (1946). The
intentional fallacy.
Carreiro, A. (2010). Script-to-Screen: Film Editing and
Collaborative Authorship During the Hollywood Renaissance.Austin, TX
Stoddart, H. (1995). Auteurism and film authorship theory.
In J. Hallows & M. Jancovich (Eds.), Approaches to Popular Film.New
York, New York: Manchester University Press.
