Andrew--
You might want to look at Corrigan's 1991 book, _A Cinema Without Walls_.
The article you mention sounds as though its probably a version of his
chapter, "The Commerce of Auterism." He argues there that the proprietary
affixing of an auteur's name to a film not only imposes an arbitrary
"legibility" on the text that reigns in potential readings, but that the
auteur has increasingly come to serve as a brand name -- a marketing device
that works on the levels both of cultural and economic capital. Although
I've made his argument sound pretty determinative, it's actually nuanced
and interesting. In fact, the whole book is -- it's well worth a look.
Best,
JH
>Hi there. Sorry for the cross-posting. Anyway, I'm hoping someone out
>there can help me with this. I'm doing a thesis on authorship in cinema,
>
>and in the course of some casual reading, I serendipitously found out
>that Duke University Press has just released a book entitled _The New
>American Cinema_. In the review that I read (from the Summer '98 issue
>of Filmmaker magazine), the book (edited by Jon Lewis) was commended for
>
>the inclusion of an essay by Timothy Corrigan that serves as an
>"analysis of the evolving role of the auteur." Although the review did
>serve up a bit of an exposition of Corrigan's main idea, I was wondering
>
>if anyone out there who has read the piece can offer a more detailed
>reading of the piece. If I could, I would buy the book myself (auteurism
>
>being very much a topic of interest with me despite it being currently
>unfashionable), but it is rather difficult for me to come across it in
>my part of the world. In connection, any thoughts on the topic itself
>will be most welcome. Thank you very much.
>
>Andrew
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|