Authorship Forum

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.