فصل النظرية ، نظرية المؤلف ٢-a .. كتاب فهم السينما

Although the principle of tension is correct - in cinema and other arts - some authors have taken it to ridiculous limits. There is the issue of degree first. The films “Hamlet” and “Crime and Punishment” both revolve around murder, deception, and investigation, and therefore they share some kinship with Acatha Christie police films. We can give this kind of subject matter - unexplained deaths, narrative projections of gradual unfolding. etc. To the director, and he is the one who can turn it into either a masterpiece or a bomb, depending on his artistic talents. It is doubtful, however, that even a genius like Berkman or Welles could do much scripting and film actors like Abbott (and Costello Meets the Mummy). In other words, the director must have a fighting chance. When the subject material sinks below a certain level of possibility, the result is not "tension", but artistic nothingness. For the most part, auteur critics have stopped themselves in praising the "small touches" of style in films that would otherwise be insignificant. If it comes to just one or two spare shots from these films, why bother? Especially since there are neglected films, but they are all good. In addition, there are some very good films, such as Joseph Lewis' Mad Guns, which does not seem to be consistent with the full potential of production, neither objectively nor stylistically. Films (The Three Patches) and Fellini films. Some excellent directors have explored a variety of themes and styles, from Fred Zinneman and Carol Reed to auteur Roberto Solini and Howard Hawks. Deal with my love

Bazin expressed his apprehension of the unbalanced negativity of some compositional critics. He felt that praising a bad film was a pity but condemning a good film as a serious downfall. Films of directors attached to categories were praised indiscriminately while those of directors who remained outside the common distinction It was automatically condemned. Authorial critics were fond of assigning ranks to directors, and their divisions were arbitrary. Competent technicians such as Nicholas Ray, Jerry Lewis, Douglas Sirk, and Otto Bremencker were placed above the level of great artists such as John Huston, Elia Kazan, Billy Wilder, and Fred Zinneman (10-22).

However, despite these transgressions, the author's theory had a liberating effect on film criticism. Most important of all, it removed the literary prejudices of previous generations and established the director as a major creative force in cinema. Although the emphasis on history and the overall production of the director tends to favor directors However, this historical perspective also had a beneficial effect on film criticism, as it reduced the tendency to evaluate the film in the internal sense, that is, outside its cultural and historical framework.

By the end of the 1960s the great battle had been won. Practically all serious discussions of cinema were at least partly conducted from the concept of a subjective vision of film. The tendency after this period was to extend the principle of auteurism to explore the individual contributions of writers, actors and cinematographers. A number of critics tried to show how the director's vision is influenced by the writer, the producing studio, or a famous star, but the principle of directorial dominance remained firm, at least for films of high artistic value.