(1984). (Annette Michelson ed. & Kevin O'Brien trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
1923. Kinoks: A revolution
Vertov called the camera a kino-eye [cine-eye] and was so obsessed to the amount that he identified himself with the eye:
"I am kino-eye. I am a builder. I have placed you, whom I've created today, in an extraordinary room which did not exist until just now when I also created it." (17)
"I am kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you the world as only I can see it.
Now and forever, I free myself from human immobility, I am in constant motion, I draw near, then away from objects, I crawl under, I climb onto them. I move apace with the muzzle of a galloping horse, I plunge full speed into a crowd, I outstrip running soldiers, I fall on my back, I ascend with an airplane, I plunge and soar together with plunging and soaring bodies. Now I, a camera, fling myself along their resultant, maneuvering in the chaos of movement, recording movement, starting with movements composed of the most complex combination" (17)
1924. The birth of kino-eye
Vertov further defined the kino-eye:
"Not kino-eye for its won sake, but truth through the means and possibilities of film-eye, i.e., kinopravda["film-truth"].
Not "filming life unawares" for the sake of the "unaware," but in order to show people without masks, without makeup, to catch them through the eye of the camera in a moment when they are not acting, to read their thoughts, laid bare by the camera.
Kino-eye as the possibility of making the invisible visible, the unclear clear, the hidden manifest, the disguised overt, the acted nonacted; making falsehood into truth.
Kino-eye as the union of science with newsreel to further the (p. 41) battle for the communist decoding of the world, as an attempt to show the truth on the screen--Film-truth." (p. 42)
Vertov called him and his colleagues kinoks as opposed to cinematographers. Editor and translator explained this term as "cine-eye men".
1924. On Kinopravda
One of Vertov's newsreels, Kinopravda, was distinct from the traditional newsreels in that Vertov experimented in assembling film footage representing a certain epoch into "harmonious" montage (p. 42). It was not a simple recording of an event. The 14th Kinopravda was totally rejected by the authority because of its obscurity and made Vertov perplexed. Nonetheless, Vertov pointed out young people and workers received it well. He simply noted:
"Kinopravda made heroic attempts to shield the proletariat from the corrupting influence of artistic film-drama. To many, these attempts seemed ridiculous. The paltry number of prints of Kinopravda could serve, at most, some thougsands of people, not millions. But though Kinopravda's role in the creation of an extensive workers' repertoire was small, its propagandistic action in the battle with the commercial movie theater repertoire proved signiticant." (p. 44)
[Here, Vertov hinted at the formulation of the kino-eye movement.]
"In attacking Kinopravda our detractors gloatingly point out that it's made from previously shot, and therefore "random" footage. To us this means that the newsreel is organized from bits of life into a theme, and not the reverse. This also means that Kinopravda doesn't order life to proceed according to a writer's scenario, but observes and records life as it is, and only then draw conclusion from these observations." (p. 45)
1924. Artistic drama and kino-eye
In this note, Vertov more clearly demonstrates the essence of the kino-eye movement, rooted in the grassroots participation from worker correspondents and agricultural correspondents:
"Comrades, I am speaking on behalf of the kinoks group. As most of you know, our group doesn't connect either its existence or its work with what is called "art."
We engage directly in the study of the phenomena of life that surround us. We hold the ability to show and elucidate life as it is, considerably higher than the occasionally diverting doll games that people call theater, cinema, etc. " (p. 47)
1925. The Essence of Kino-Eye
Vertov defined the kino-eye movement: "led by newsreel workers, the kinoks, [it] is an international movement, and its development is keeping strides with the worldwide proletarian revolution" (p. 49).
Organized by film editors, cinema-worker correspondents cooperated in making decisions on distribution and other tasks. Vertov used the term "decoding" in defining the objective:
"The method of radio-broadcasting images, just recently invented, can bring us still closer to our cherished basic goal--to unite all the workers scattered over the earth through a single consciousness, a single bond, a single collective will in the battle for communism.
This objective of ours we call kino-eye. The decoding of life as it is. Using facts to influence the workers' consciousness." (p. 49)
The purpose of cinema became clearer to Vertov:
"We will not prepare for the broadcast of operas and drama. We will prepare wholeheartedly to give the workers of every land the opportunity to see and hear the whole world in an organized form; to see, hear, and understand one another." (p. 56, in 1925)
1958. Love for the living person.
Vertov later in his life had this conversation:
"As a matter of fact, everything I have done in cinema was connected, directly and indirectly, with my persistent effort to reveal the thinking of the 'living person.' Sometimes that person was the film's author-director, not shown on the screen. Sometimes this image of the 'living person' included traits not of a single concrete person, but of several and even many people who had been chosen accordingly." (p. 156)
Here he implied that authors can be multiple in cinema.
Showing posts with label authorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authorship. Show all posts
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Dziga Vertov: Defining Documentary Film
Hicks, Jeremy. (2007). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Introduction (1-4)
In this book, Hicks focuses on the question as to "how Soviet journalism inspired his creative transformation of newsreel into the new form of documentary film" (p. 1). Contrary to the general assumption that Vertov obviated performance, Hicks argued that Vertov balanced between "recording and reworking and his greatest works combined with unstaged footage to unleash an influential rhetoric force.
The birth of documentary from the spirit of journalism: Cine-Pravda, Cine-Eye (5-21)
In 1922, Vertov began to work on news series Cine-Pravda with his future wife and his brother Mikhail Kaufman. Hicks commented:
"It is with Cine-Pravda that Vertov truly begins to realise cinema's power to exhort in images. Cine-Pravda no. 1 (June 1922) sets the tone for Vertov's newsreels in its sharply rhetorical style, downplaying the registering of events and instead editing together shots taken at different times and places so as to construct an argument. (p. 6-7)
Hicks argued, "The camera does not record an already existing causal relation, it creates it" (p. 7). He found the root cause of this transition from recording to discursive force, persuasion and exhortation in cinema in Soviet journalism.
"Vertov's transformation of what to become known as documentary cinema is inconceivable outside the context of the Bolshevik approach to journalism. Stylistically and in its approach to information, persuasion and communication, Vertov's film-making of the 1920s extends the model of the Bolshevik newspaper." (p. 8)
Hicks stressed that in stark contrast to the liberal conception of journalism in the West, the Bolshviks never considered objectivity as a primary consideration. Lenin stated "A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser" (as cited in page 8).
Hicks finds the similarity between Soviet Journalism and Vertov's renewal of newsreel as:
"[T]hey start from the fact, but elaborate on it so as to present it as powerfully and as engagingly as possible. Vertov too maintained a similar dual commitment, on the one hand to the capacity of cinema to record as a starting point, and on the other hand to exploring and unleashing its creative, persuasive, analytical potential." (p. 10)
In this context Hicks saw Cine-Pravda as "a revolutionary newsreel entailing a root and branch reassessment of the possibilities of film as a medium" (p. 11)
Hicks saw that Vertov achieved a higher stage with Cine-Eye (1924), which was an "attempt to create a manifesto for a grassroots movement of cine-journalists whose purpose was to transform society, along with relations to creativity and technology" (p. 15)
Hicks finds the background of Vertov's Cine-Eye movement in Soviet journalism which emphasized the worker correspondent movement. This movement in fact began with the situation that the population found the press difficult to understand, thus the Bolsheviks created new dailies aimed at peasants and semi-illiterate strata of the working class by urging them to write letters to the press. Hicks wrote, "This served to encourage reader participation, and at the same time enabled the setting up of an amateur correspondents' network" (p. 17). The Cine-Eye movement is a precisely embodiment of this movement in Soviet cinema. However, Hicks further pointed out that Vertov went a step further and emphasized the participatory model of news-gathering to make this grassroots movement far more effective. Vertov stated that he tried to
"create an army of cine-observers and cine-correspondents with the aim of moving away from the authorship from a single person to mass authorship, with the aim of organising a montage vision--not an accidental but a necessary and sufficient overview of the world every few hours" (as cite in pages 17-18)
Hicks paid particular attention to the use of the Pioneers (Soviet scouts). They are observed and at the same time observers who undertake amateur journalistic research to show every day life. Hicks wrote "Cine-Eye reveals that everyday life, the normal appearance of bread, masks the labour invested in it" (p. 19). The choice of the Pioneers was significant to Vertov, argued Hicks. It represents Vertov's emphasis on teaching the next generation the methods of making cinema. The Pionners, while being filmed, were also learning about filming.
Nonetheless, by 1925 the Cine-Eye movement was close to end because of state control over media to disseminate the views of the Party.
Introduction (1-4)
In this book, Hicks focuses on the question as to "how Soviet journalism inspired his creative transformation of newsreel into the new form of documentary film" (p. 1). Contrary to the general assumption that Vertov obviated performance, Hicks argued that Vertov balanced between "recording and reworking and his greatest works combined with unstaged footage to unleash an influential rhetoric force.
The birth of documentary from the spirit of journalism: Cine-Pravda, Cine-Eye (5-21)
In 1922, Vertov began to work on news series Cine-Pravda with his future wife and his brother Mikhail Kaufman. Hicks commented:
"It is with Cine-Pravda that Vertov truly begins to realise cinema's power to exhort in images. Cine-Pravda no. 1 (June 1922) sets the tone for Vertov's newsreels in its sharply rhetorical style, downplaying the registering of events and instead editing together shots taken at different times and places so as to construct an argument. (p. 6-7)
Hicks argued, "The camera does not record an already existing causal relation, it creates it" (p. 7). He found the root cause of this transition from recording to discursive force, persuasion and exhortation in cinema in Soviet journalism.
"Vertov's transformation of what to become known as documentary cinema is inconceivable outside the context of the Bolshevik approach to journalism. Stylistically and in its approach to information, persuasion and communication, Vertov's film-making of the 1920s extends the model of the Bolshevik newspaper." (p. 8)
Hicks stressed that in stark contrast to the liberal conception of journalism in the West, the Bolshviks never considered objectivity as a primary consideration. Lenin stated "A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser" (as cited in page 8).
Hicks finds the similarity between Soviet Journalism and Vertov's renewal of newsreel as:
"[T]hey start from the fact, but elaborate on it so as to present it as powerfully and as engagingly as possible. Vertov too maintained a similar dual commitment, on the one hand to the capacity of cinema to record as a starting point, and on the other hand to exploring and unleashing its creative, persuasive, analytical potential." (p. 10)
In this context Hicks saw Cine-Pravda as "a revolutionary newsreel entailing a root and branch reassessment of the possibilities of film as a medium" (p. 11)
Hicks saw that Vertov achieved a higher stage with Cine-Eye (1924), which was an "attempt to create a manifesto for a grassroots movement of cine-journalists whose purpose was to transform society, along with relations to creativity and technology" (p. 15)
Hicks finds the background of Vertov's Cine-Eye movement in Soviet journalism which emphasized the worker correspondent movement. This movement in fact began with the situation that the population found the press difficult to understand, thus the Bolsheviks created new dailies aimed at peasants and semi-illiterate strata of the working class by urging them to write letters to the press. Hicks wrote, "This served to encourage reader participation, and at the same time enabled the setting up of an amateur correspondents' network" (p. 17). The Cine-Eye movement is a precisely embodiment of this movement in Soviet cinema. However, Hicks further pointed out that Vertov went a step further and emphasized the participatory model of news-gathering to make this grassroots movement far more effective. Vertov stated that he tried to
"create an army of cine-observers and cine-correspondents with the aim of moving away from the authorship from a single person to mass authorship, with the aim of organising a montage vision--not an accidental but a necessary and sufficient overview of the world every few hours" (as cite in pages 17-18)
Hicks paid particular attention to the use of the Pioneers (Soviet scouts). They are observed and at the same time observers who undertake amateur journalistic research to show every day life. Hicks wrote "Cine-Eye reveals that everyday life, the normal appearance of bread, masks the labour invested in it" (p. 19). The choice of the Pioneers was significant to Vertov, argued Hicks. It represents Vertov's emphasis on teaching the next generation the methods of making cinema. The Pionners, while being filmed, were also learning about filming.
Nonetheless, by 1925 the Cine-Eye movement was close to end because of state control over media to disseminate the views of the Party.
Review of Chronicle of a Summer
Dumont, Jean-Paul. (1978). American Anthropologist, 80(4), 1020-1022.
Dumont pointed out two aspects in Rouch and Morin's approach to anthropology in this film: (1) (2) "Rouch the ethnographer and Morin the sociologist eschew the pitfalls of typologies, samplings, and generalizations" (p. 1021). In this sense, Dumont argued that their project did not study Paris but in Paris; (2) precedence of methodology over the content. He put it, "From the outset, Morin and Rouch know what their method will be but not what it will lead them to" (p. 1021).
Dumont sharply stated the reason why this film was an anthropological success:
Morin and Rouch have been able to capture a slice of life, even though in reality the film has been edited and constructed. It is not of course a neutral slice of life, but the way they have (p. 1021)perceived it. Here it is offered to the viewer with little effort on their part to be didactic about it. It is not a thesis; it has little to prove; but it is a documentation of the way in which Parisians of 1960 lived. And yet, of course, Rouch's and Morin's biases, their personalities, their sensibilities are there also. After all, they too have something to say about antisemitism, racism
and class-consciousness. (p. 1022)
For Dumont, this film does not represent Parisian live but the ideology of their existence in the summer of 1960 and it prompts an audience to meaning-making out of it, instead of providing the full meaning of the topic of the film:
"[T]he topic of the film is strongly pulled toward an intersubjectivity in gestation, whereby the construction of meaning is a process which takes place right in front of my eyes. In this sense, the film is not representative of anything, but it represents less what it was to live in Paris in the summer of 1960 than the ideology of what this experience was." (p. 1022)
Dumont pointed out two aspects in Rouch and Morin's approach to anthropology in this film: (1) (2) "Rouch the ethnographer and Morin the sociologist eschew the pitfalls of typologies, samplings, and generalizations" (p. 1021). In this sense, Dumont argued that their project did not study Paris but in Paris; (2) precedence of methodology over the content. He put it, "From the outset, Morin and Rouch know what their method will be but not what it will lead them to" (p. 1021).
Dumont sharply stated the reason why this film was an anthropological success:
Morin and Rouch have been able to capture a slice of life, even though in reality the film has been edited and constructed. It is not of course a neutral slice of life, but the way they have (p. 1021)perceived it. Here it is offered to the viewer with little effort on their part to be didactic about it. It is not a thesis; it has little to prove; but it is a documentation of the way in which Parisians of 1960 lived. And yet, of course, Rouch's and Morin's biases, their personalities, their sensibilities are there also. After all, they too have something to say about antisemitism, racism
and class-consciousness. (p. 1022)
For Dumont, this film does not represent Parisian live but the ideology of their existence in the summer of 1960 and it prompts an audience to meaning-making out of it, instead of providing the full meaning of the topic of the film:
"[T]he topic of the film is strongly pulled toward an intersubjectivity in gestation, whereby the construction of meaning is a process which takes place right in front of my eyes. In this sense, the film is not representative of anything, but it represents less what it was to live in Paris in the summer of 1960 than the ideology of what this experience was." (p. 1022)
Russian Cinema
Gillespie, David. (2003). Essex, UK: Longman.
Film and Ideology (103-123)
Gillespie asserted that films in the 1920s follows Bolshevik policies and its view of history and progress. Directors, including Pudovkin, Eisenstein, Vertov, etc. undertook different styles to commit to the Bolshevik cause and used their art to promote it. As Gillespie addressed, in particular, Vertov combined this political perspective with his artistic sense and cinematic authorship in order to "create a utopian vision of the new city through the medium of the camera" (p. 107). This artistic and political ambition, however, came to nothing under the propaganda of social realism determining all forms of cultural production in 1934, Gillespie argued.
Christie and Taylor (1994). The film factory: Russian and Soviet cinema in documents, 1986-1939.
Film and Ideology (103-123)
Gillespie asserted that films in the 1920s follows Bolshevik policies and its view of history and progress. Directors, including Pudovkin, Eisenstein, Vertov, etc. undertook different styles to commit to the Bolshevik cause and used their art to promote it. As Gillespie addressed, in particular, Vertov combined this political perspective with his artistic sense and cinematic authorship in order to "create a utopian vision of the new city through the medium of the camera" (p. 107). This artistic and political ambition, however, came to nothing under the propaganda of social realism determining all forms of cultural production in 1934, Gillespie argued.
Christie and Taylor (1994). The film factory: Russian and Soviet cinema in documents, 1986-1939.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
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.
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.
Types of authorship in cinema
Livingston, Paiseley. (2009). In Cinema, philosophy, and Bergman: On film as philosophy (pp. 63-83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Livingston three key issues of mainstream large-scale film-making. (1) individual and joint/collective authorship: he emphasizes these two forms of authorship in lieu of the predominant notion of individual authorship. (2)authorship and value: one of the reasons for discussing authorship is the link between certain kinds of values and intentional activity. (3) authorship and unity: Livingston argues, "only the maker of a large, strongly unified life work or oeuvre complet truly qualifies as an author" (p. 68). [This view makes him distinct from Gaut, who argued for multiple authors within a single work of art.]
Livingston argues for two conditions of cinematic authorship: sufficient control over the production of a work plus an intentional act to express the author's own attitude. In this regard, he presented various types of cinematic authorship: individual authorship, individual authorship in the context of a collective film-making process, and joint authorship amongst equals. In particular with joint authorship, Livingston borrowed the term "mashing sub-plans" used by Michael E. Bratman (Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency, 98-103, Cambridge University Press, 1999):
"In many cases where two or more persons jointly author an utterance or work, they intentionally generate or select the text, artefact [sic], performance, or structure that is the work's publicly observable component; in so doing, they act on meshing sub-plans and exercise shared control and decision-making authority over the results; furthermore, in making the work or utterance, they together take credit for it as a whole." (p. 74)
Livingston contended that individual authorship is indeed rare in large-scale commercial film-making, for film-making is a collective process in which people depend on each other's skills. And yet, he stressed that there should be one who control over the overall process. In this respect, Livingston distinguishes himself from Gaut (1997, 2010), who argued for multiple authorship in mainstream authorship, in part, because actors also contribute to creating artistic properties that deserves recognition as one of the work's multiple authors.
Despite his agreement with Gaut that most films are not individually authored and various artistic contributions merit appreciation, Livingston limited the word author to " a person who has played the role of the dominant coordinating collaborator in the creation of the work, provided, that is, that the work has been made by this person with the aim of expressing his or her attitude (or, in the absence of any expressive content, with the aim of endowing the work with artistic quality)" (p. 77). One of the reasons why Livingston disqualify actors' performances as authorship is that they do not play controlling and expressive roles in the making of the work, although their performances are successfully "mashed" with the director's intention and expression.
In short, Livingston emphasized, in the notion of cinematic authorship, overall control and expressive or artistic intentional design in the making of a work. Nonetheless, he does not exclude other types of cinematic authorship, namely, in non-hierarchical forms of artistic collaboration. He leaves the door open to this field. [I think that PV can fall into this category.]
Livingston three key issues of mainstream large-scale film-making. (1) individual and joint/collective authorship: he emphasizes these two forms of authorship in lieu of the predominant notion of individual authorship. (2)authorship and value: one of the reasons for discussing authorship is the link between certain kinds of values and intentional activity. (3) authorship and unity: Livingston argues, "only the maker of a large, strongly unified life work or oeuvre complet truly qualifies as an author" (p. 68). [This view makes him distinct from Gaut, who argued for multiple authors within a single work of art.]
Livingston argues for two conditions of cinematic authorship: sufficient control over the production of a work plus an intentional act to express the author's own attitude. In this regard, he presented various types of cinematic authorship: individual authorship, individual authorship in the context of a collective film-making process, and joint authorship amongst equals. In particular with joint authorship, Livingston borrowed the term "mashing sub-plans" used by Michael E. Bratman (Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency, 98-103, Cambridge University Press, 1999):
"In many cases where two or more persons jointly author an utterance or work, they intentionally generate or select the text, artefact [sic], performance, or structure that is the work's publicly observable component; in so doing, they act on meshing sub-plans and exercise shared control and decision-making authority over the results; furthermore, in making the work or utterance, they together take credit for it as a whole." (p. 74)
Livingston contended that individual authorship is indeed rare in large-scale commercial film-making, for film-making is a collective process in which people depend on each other's skills. And yet, he stressed that there should be one who control over the overall process. In this respect, Livingston distinguishes himself from Gaut (1997, 2010), who argued for multiple authorship in mainstream authorship, in part, because actors also contribute to creating artistic properties that deserves recognition as one of the work's multiple authors.
Despite his agreement with Gaut that most films are not individually authored and various artistic contributions merit appreciation, Livingston limited the word author to " a person who has played the role of the dominant coordinating collaborator in the creation of the work, provided, that is, that the work has been made by this person with the aim of expressing his or her attitude (or, in the absence of any expressive content, with the aim of endowing the work with artistic quality)" (p. 77). One of the reasons why Livingston disqualify actors' performances as authorship is that they do not play controlling and expressive roles in the making of the work, although their performances are successfully "mashed" with the director's intention and expression.
In short, Livingston emphasized, in the notion of cinematic authorship, overall control and expressive or artistic intentional design in the making of a work. Nonetheless, he does not exclude other types of cinematic authorship, namely, in non-hierarchical forms of artistic collaboration. He leaves the door open to this field. [I think that PV can fall into this category.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
