IFC Assignment 5 – Tutor Feedback
Tutor feedback for assignment 5 was in the form of a Skype conversation anf about is my highlighted copy of Andrews follow up notes.
Andrew was very pleased with the essay and we were fairly close to be on the same page about our tjougyts towards it. Andrew like my in my initial thinking thought there were more thematic traits in Boyle’s work that I had talked about – particularly the idea of left wing bias etc, in in general complemented me that I had argued my position well.
The tutorial was followed up my the following exchange of emails:
1st August 2017
Andrew
Greeting from a rather cool by Hong Kong standards Leeds.Thats for the the feedback on A5 and the tutorial – as I was reading through you comments one phrase jumped out at me “nodding with agreement” because while reading and talking to you with regards this essay I found myself doing that along with you comments.My initial idea with this essay was to try and illustrate Danny Boyle as modern auter based upon his ability to capture zeitgeist and the initial seed can from listening to Danny Boyle being interviewed on Kermode and Mayo’s 5 Live podcast back on a cold February morning in Leeds just after seeing T2: Trainspotting, just after I had submitted assignment 3 to you, and it just sat in the back of my mind until I need to concentrate on Assignment 5.When I commenced research and actually drafting the essay out I found I was more heading away from the traditional Sarris definitions and couldn’t really find him a true auteur – without seriously refuting (probably a bit strong) auteur theory as a whole. An hence I think my essay reads a little away from what perhaps think in my heart and is written to the tone of what I thought I should say. Especial when I was reading through Edwin Pages book basically seems to say Danny Boyle was a auteur about 12 times over with number of themes running through the body of work – which i have to admit I clearly disagreed with but not as strongly as I put forward in the essay.Based upon our conversation I’ll look to rework the essay around a few ideas and points– the idea of left wing bias which I overlooked particularly in connection with the olympics– the use of music and “summarily dismissal” of A life less ordinary and The Beach – which wasn’t necessarily the original intent.– more direct use of references – I do have a tendency to paraphrase too much.– point taken on the sweeping statement about Danny Boyle saving the whole of British cinema – again wasn’t deliberate so just need a the working tweaking to show what else was happening at the time– Does a director need to display ‘authorial intent’ to be considered an auteur? I have a bit more confidence to address this now, as you say Auteur theory as it stands is a little shaky.– Conclusion I think again needs to be more strongly worded to show that Auteur theory as it stands makes it hard for us to identify a a filmmaker such as Boyle as an Auteur when they are lot thing in there work that makes them individual but dat have stylistic tunnel vision.Obviously Ill keep polishing the blog for assessment.Once again thank you for the support through out the course – it was invaluable without the extra mile you put in on A2 I would be dead in the water now.
Reply 7th August 2017
Hi Pete,
Thanks for this, and I hope that you’re suitably acclimatised! And this, allegedly, is summer!!It’s really nice to read such a (typically) engaged and thoughtful email, and if reworking the essay is your gut instinct, then rework away!I used to (really) think that auteur theory was where it was all at as far as authorship arguments went, but have since found myself occupying a more moderate (mellow?!) position. I still think there’s something in it, but things have, as they were always going to, changed quite a lot. For one thing, I actually think that the presence of stars, editors, CGI-types, and even- maybe even especially– producers can be more keenly felt in most pictures, certainly ‘mainstream’ Hollywood fare, than the presence of many directors these days, so much so that I often feel like the idea of the auteur is mainly to be found in the minds of nostalgic film critics and/ or the more art-leaning parts of world cinema. Auteur theory gave Hollywood a new set of ways to sell its films, and part of me thinks that it’s an old trick that’s been wrung dry to the point of meaninglessness. Don’t forget, the guys- and they were always guys!!- that Truffaut, Godard, Sarris et al saw as auteurs were filmmakers who very definitely worked in the ‘mainstream’: John Ford, Hitchcock, etc etc. Part of the thing was that they wanted films that had invariably been seen as worthless to be reappraised and taken seriously as ‘art’, and bringing in literary allusions, e.g. ‘the camera as pen’, was a way, I guess, for them to be noticed and listened to. I guess figures like these still exist (Christopher Nolan immediately springs to mind), but as often as not, it’s always in a rather self-conscious way. I suppose the Cahiers du Cinema were arguing that great art was hiding in mainstream popular culture, but films by neo-auteurs such as Christopher Nolan are marketed as great art to start with.Boyle, though, I think conforms to the idea of the auteur as much as he bucks it. By one reading, an auteur makes the same film over and over again, and for all his stylistic restlessness, Boyle clearly has a ‘signature’. He’s perhaps not as thematically focused and soap box-y as Ken Loach, for example, but….. but auteur theory ultimately really was about a sort of intellectual value judgment, and I could (probably!!) just as easily put another hat on and argue that he’s not an auteur. I guess auteur theory’s real use was that it ushered in an age where film was seen in rather more serious terms…. how seriously we can take it as a workable theory anymore, I don’t know.Let me know how you get on with assessment, and best of luck,Andrew