“American cinema was worth studying in depth, that masterpieces were made by… a whole range of authors, who’s work had been previously dismissed and consigned to oblivion” (589) . I am a little confused by the two different categories of auteur critics: “those who insisted on revealing a core of meanings, of thematic motifs, and those who stressed style and mise-en-scene” (590). He goes on to say how auteur is more semantic than stylistic which confuses me because I thought that film style contributes to the semantic aspect of films, therefore they go hand in hand and cannot be separated. The author also mentions metteur en scene, which differentiates from auteur because it is a more formal interpretation in that it stays focused on the performance and nothing beyond that.
Howard Hawks exemplifies this auteur theory because it continues to use the same motifs. The only thing I have seen of his movies is the Big Sleep so I really do not have much to compare it to but it did not seem to fall into the categories that were mentioned in this article although it did have aspects of the “adventure drama” because it mentions strong men which I believe Phil falls under that category of.
No comments:
Post a Comment