![]() And ultimately, any individual’s style was no more than an inflection on an established studio style. Ultimately, Schatz argues that more than any particular director, writer, actor, or individual movies from the Hollywood system were the result of:Ī melding of institutional forces the style of a writer, director, star, – or even a cinematographer, art director, or costume designer – fused with the studio’s production operations and management structure, its resources and talent pool, its narrative traditions and market strategy. Considering this, Schatz argues we need to take a more ecological look at the system from which these movies emerged to determine who – if anyone – can be pointed to as the creative center of film in this era. Such a view is quite myopic, Schatz claims, since the authority to produce auteurist films “came only with commercial success and was won by filmmakers who proved not just that they had talent but that they could work profitably within the system” (524). This action effectively elevated a sole few directors and movies, those which supposedly transcended the system of their creation and rendered invisible both parts of the career of these auteurs and a vast amount of film history. At this time, Schatz argues, the theory of film history was based on a “notion of directorial authorship” which highlighted “author-artists… whose personal style emerged from a certain antagonism to the studio system at large” (524). Schatz begins his argument by focusing on film criticism from the 60s and 70s. A black and white image of the Hollywood sign
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |