Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:53:52.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Robert L. Carringer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It was not long ago that one prefecture of french culture was reinventing the idea of authorship while another one was trying to kill it off. The New Wave movement and post-structuralism, fundamental opposites in almost every respect, emerged at the same cultural moment. Roland Barthcs's Writing Degree Zero (1953) and François Truffaut's seminal essay in Cahiers du cinéma that instated auteur criticism (the first phase of the New Wave) appeared less than a year apart; the appearance of Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization (1961) coincided with the triumph of New Wave filmmaking; and in the interval between 1966 and 1970, which saw the publication of The Order of Things, Of Grammatology, and S/Z, Jean-Luc Godard, the most iconoclastic of the New Wave critic-directors, released fourteen feature films, including four masterworks. In its classic phase poststructuralism was fixated on the written word, involved disciplined thought inflected by mainstream Continental philosophy, took on itself the burden of refashioning modern European history along Marxist lines, and could be uncompromisingly rectitudinous. The New Wave spoke the language of images, involved a loose and—except for its radical stylistics—rather tame avant-gardism, valued an aleatory, free-form aesthetic over political commitment, assailed mainstream French culture, and championed alternative forms of cultural production such as American popular movies. Yet the teleologies were similar: to inscribe a unique place in the history of authorship. To supplant the biographical author from the textual site, one of the primary motives of poststructuralism, was to make the collective space available for a higher entity, the philosopher-critic who is the author not of individual texts but of textuality, the social meaning of texts. In the same way, in claiming the textual site for a film author—a radical conception for the time—the auteur critics scripted a role for themselves that they would subsequently occupy as film directors.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , March 2001 , pp. 370 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Aitken, Will. “Love Match.” Christopher Street Sept. 1980: 58–61.Google Scholar
Antoine de, Baecque, and Toubiana, Serge. Truffant. Trans. Catherine Temerson. New York: Knopf, 1999.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. 1957. Selected and trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill, 1972.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. S/Z. 1970. Trans. Richard Miller. New York: Hill, 1974.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. Writing Degree Zero. 1953. Trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith. New York: Hill, 1968.Google Scholar
Bedford, Pat. “William Daniels, ASC: ‘An Inventor of Detail.‘” American Cinematographer Mar. 1983: 44–48.Google Scholar
Burke, Sean, ed. Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1995.Google Scholar
Burke, Sean. The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1998.Google Scholar
Carringer, Robert. The Making of Citizen Kane. Rev. ed. Berkeley: U of California P, 1996.Google Scholar
Caughie, John, ed. Theories of Authorship: A Reader. London: Routledge, 1981.Google Scholar
Chandler, Raymond. The Long Goodbye. Boston: Houghton, 1953.Google Scholar
Conarroe, Joel. Editor's Column. PMLA 95 (1980): 3–4.Google Scholar
Corber, Robert J. “Hitchcock's Washington: Spectatorship, Ideology, and the ‘Homosexual Menace’ in Strangers on a Train.” Hitchcock's America. Ed. Freedman, Jonathan and Millington, Richard. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 99-121. Rev. rpt. of “Reconstructing Homosexuality: Hitchcock and the Homoerotics of Spectatorial Pleasure.” In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia, and the Political Construction of Gender in Postwar America. Durham: Duke UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. 1967. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. 1961. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Vintage, 1988.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. 1966. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1994.Google Scholar
Farley, Granger. “Granger on a Train.” With Jessie Lilley. Scarlet Street 21 (1996): 66+.Google Scholar
Grant, Catherine. “www.auteur.com?” Screen 41 (2000): 101–09.10.1093/screen/41.1.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, Charles. Interview with William Daniels. Hollywood Cameramen: Sources of Light. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1970. 57–74.Google Scholar
Highsmith, Patricia. Strangers on a Train. 1950. London: Heinemann, 1966.Google Scholar
Hiney, Tom. Raymond Chandler: A Biography. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 1997.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, Alfred, dir. Strangers on a Train. 1951. DVD. Warner. 1997.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism; or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Laurents, Arthur. Original Story By: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood. New York: Knopf, 2000.Google Scholar
Legman, G[ershon]. Love und Death: A Study in Censorship. New York: Breaking Point. 1949.Google Scholar
MacShane, Frank. The Life of Raymond Chandler. New York: Dutton, 1976Google Scholar
MacShane, Frank. Selected Letters of Raymond Chandler. New York: Columbia UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Michael, Mason. “Marlowe. Men and Women.” The World of Raymond Chandler, ed. Miriam Gross London: Weidenfeld, 1977. 89–101.Google Scholar
“Perverts Called Government Peril.” New York Times 19 Apr. 1950: 25.Google Scholar
Russo, Vito. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies. New York: Harper, 1981.Google Scholar
Samuels, Robert. Hitchcock's Bi-textuality: Lacan. Feminisms, and Queer Theory Albany: State U of New York P, 1998.Google Scholar
Schaefer, William D. Editor's Column. PMLA 92 (1977): 379–80.Google Scholar
Schatz, Thomas. “Anatomy of a House Director: Capra, Cohn, and Columbia in the 1930s.” Frank Capra: Authorship and the Studio System. Ed. Sklar, Robert and Zagarrio, Vito. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1998. 10–36.Google Scholar
“Senators Back Morals Probe.” Los Angeles Times 25 May 1950: 114.Google Scholar
Truffaut, François. “Une certaine tendance du cinéma français.” Cahiers du cinéma Ian. 1954: 15–28.Google Scholar
United States. Cong. Senate Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depts. Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government. Interim Rept. 81st. Cong., 2nd sess. Washington: GPO, 1950.Google Scholar
White, Patricia. “Supporting Character: The Queer Career of Agnes Moorehead” Out in Culture. Gay. Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture. Ed. Creekmur, Corey K. and Doty, Alexander. Durham: Duke UP, 1995. 91–114.Google Scholar
William S., White “Inquiry by Senate on Perverts Asked.” New York Times 20 May 1950: 8.Google Scholar
Wood, Robin. Hitchcock's Films. New York: Barnes, 1965.Google Scholar
Wood, Robin. “Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic.” Film Comment Jan.-Feb. 1978. 12–17.10.1215/9780822397441-002CrossRefGoogle Scholar