Cinematic authorship

Gaut, Berys. (2010). In A philosophy of cinematic art (pp. 98-151). Cambridge University Press.

In this chapter, Gaut developed his multiple-authorship thesis in cinematic authorship. First of all, he wrote, "Yet the notion of film authorship--so appealing to lay intuition and scholarly understanding alike--oddly mysterious and deeply elusive" (p. 98). Single authorship, predominating the film study, fails to explain the tendency of mainstream films, which is characterized with collaboration, Gaut said. Here, he argued that "we must acknowledge that collaborative films have multiple authors" (p. 99).

(He defined a mainstream film: "one that has at least two people in the key production roles" (p. 106).)

Responding to Livingston's influential argument in the defense of single authorship of mainstream films, Gaut argued that Livingston's dual requirements of expressive/artistic intentions and sufficient control of the work as whole is important; but as Livingston notes that in large-scale commercial films single authorship is not the most common, Gaut finds the irony in L's argument for single-authorship. In particular, in the context of actors' roles in collaboration, Gaut put it:

[A]ctors and many other contributors should count as co-authors of the film, since they typically have expressive sub-plans that mesh, to varying degrees, with the other contributors to the film, just as the director typically has expressive sub-plans that mesh with theirs; and, in the case of those authors who are artists, they typically also have plans to give the film artistically relevant qualities, such as making it beautiful or original, and so on. (p. 122)

Gaut agrees that the director is likely to be the most important contributor of expressive and artistic properties to a film. By saying so, he stressed that multiple-authorship does not require that all the contributions must be of equal importance. Further, as to "sufficient control", Gaut argued, "If the relationship of a film are construed broadly, as in the pattern making example, then other artistic contributors besides the writer-director must count as co-authors." By emphasizing non-hierarchical relationship in lieu of control, Gaut argues a possibility of multiple contribution, and thus, multiple-authorship.

Gaut defended multiple-authorship from the ontological aspect of film. He argued that "films are moving pictures with sound, which incorporate mechanical recordings of performances" (p. 126). Nonetheless, tarnished by the literary paradigm, which uses a quite different medium, cinematic authorship has been wrongly understood, Gaut argued. Further, Gaut continued to stress, "The film actor, then, co-determines (with the screen writer, director, or whomever) the character she plays in a film.

Gaut further refined multiple authorship. Gaut discussed: (1) different degrees of creative powers in collaborative artistic activities; (2) different degrees to which different collaborators are in agreement with others. Gaut points out, "The collaborators may also either be aware of , or be completely unconscious of the fact that they are in agreement or in conflict" (p. 128)
[Which is true in VTW projects. Collaboration sometimes breaks.]

Therefore, Gaut argued that films should be multiply classified, not only by directors but also actors, cameramen, editors, etc. In particular, Gaut argued, multiple-authorship successfully explains the "contradictory text" of a film, in which authors do not have the same views and interpretation, which results in different results from the director's intention. Defending multiple-authorship, Gaut put it:

"Sub-plans can refuse to mesh with each other, sometimes spectacularly, but a multiply authored film can result, and it may be an artistically successful one, sometimes precisely because of this lack of significant mesh." (p. 132)

Finally, interesting to see his comparison between film-making and jazz music performance, which show "a set of strong musical personalities who converse with each other through their playing and create music richer than any could make on his own." (p. 132). For him, both are one of the "dramatic individualism" (p. 132) and a synergistic outcome.