julie grossman wonders
 
        " if it's possible to teach the well-known (male) directors while
providing 1) a feminist critique of the romantic auteur paradigm
and 2) a revision of the canon by studying women directors (and perhaps--
following the good suggestions of list members--women producers and stars)"
 
but i find myself wondering whether these two agendas don't contradict each
other . . . for it seems, at first glance anyway, that if you're going to argue
that "auteurism" is a romantic delusion that suppresses/evades the real
factors shaping films [or shaping what matters most in films] then why would
you want to re-appropriate that discredited model, even as a way of revising
the canon? . . . there obviously are ways of revising the canon to make it less
patriarchal [which i use here loosely as an all purpose term for the various
sexist plots, ploys, and premises of the dominant cinema] without using the
very partriarchal notion of the auteur who somehow makes the movie [or the
movie's greatness] out of his--or her--own personal genius, thus, as it were,
owning the film and imposing his own meanings on it
 
(BTW, for the record, i'm not convinced that all aspects of auteurism are
bankrupt  . . . but if one wants to make a claim of that kind--and there are
reasons for doing so--then isn't it necessary to apply it equally?)
 
mike frank
 
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]