I found the context of practice seminar on auteurship very interesting because this was the first time I had been introduced to the concept and I found the idea of it very new and intriguing. Essentially, auteur theory, (‘auteur’ being the French word for ‘author’) is a concept that suggests a director in terms of cinema, has a collection of work where there is similar themes and visual choices throughout. These choices can be chosen for specific reasons or can occur naturally through the unconscious decision of the filmmaker. Auteur theory originated in France in the late 1940s and was a foundation for the French cinema movement that was dubbed, ‘nouvelle vague’ or, ‘new wave’. The idea driving the concept is that it is the director who looks over and approves certain elements of a motion picture and thus deserves the title “author” as oppose to the writer of the screenplay for example. Certain aspects of the direction and camera work such as the length of the scene, positioning of the camera, and choice of lighting are what makes the film what it is visually. People who agree with this concept often remark on the way that films which are successful often have the directors unmistakable taste and personal choice marked on the film.
After we were introduced to the concept, a discussion took place and people put forward their opinions based on what we had learnt about it. Someone asked the question, 'if another director has the same visual style as another, does that make them both auteurs?' A counter argument to this would be that one of the directors could have taken inspiration from another and consequently the original director, or the one that worked in the specific way first would be classed as the auteur, as one of the factors of auteurship is working in a unique and personal style, rather than emulating others.
From here, the concept was linked to animation and we spoke about how auteurship can be applied to animation. We were told that rarely are animators given the title or called an 'auteur' because of the nature of the medium. By this, I mean so much of the film is based on unique visual ideas that it's hard to call the director the single greatest contributor to the film. When it comes to animation, ideas are picked from thin air and developed as a team, rather than film where you are consistently shooting live actors, and other variables can be altered such as the previously mentioned aspects of camera, lights etc. Despite this, animation like film can have recurring themes, genre and consistent visual styles one the style has been developed. Where a team of people creates the work however, it could be dubbed, 'avante-garde' as oppose to auteurship, as it is original and new, but just lacks the individual flair that has to exist to call something a product of auteurship.
The idea of 'avante-gardism' implies that the work is a product of rebellion agains the norm, or going against the expected. It is also associated with innovative work, and moving forward. When looking at a large cooperation such as Disney, who were one of the pioneers in animation, at the start of their work they would have been considered avante-garde, where as now their work is established and lesser known upcoming animation studios developing new styles and practices are more inclined to be referred to as avante-garde.
I found this seminar extremely interesting, and I liked the introduction of a new concept I hadn't had the opportunity to learn about before this. To understand the concept in detail would be quite complicated I feel but given the time we had I feel like I have a firm grasp on the idea and what it means to be an auteur.
No comments:
Post a Comment