The Value of Fidelity in Adaptation When the Coen Brothers Film, O

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Value of Fidelity in Adaptation When the Coen Brothers Film, O JAMES HAROLD PLEASE CITE PUBLISHED VERSION: PREPUBLICATION VERSION: Do not cite The British Journal of Aesthetics 58.1 (2018): 89-100. The Value of Fidelity in Adaptation When the Coen brothers film, O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) opens, a title card quotes the opening lines of Homer’s Odyssey: ‘O Muse! / Sing in me, and through me tell the story / Of that man skilled in all the ways of contending, / A wanderer, harried for years on end …’ However, beyond a few general similarities in regard to incident and character (e.g., the protagonist of the film is called ‘Ulysses’ and his wife is ‘Penny’), the two works tell very different stories. The Coen brothers admit that they had never read the Odyssey and they didn’t originally intend their film as a genuine adaptation of Homer’s poem.1 The film tells the story of populism and racism in the American south during the great depression, and prominently features the folk music of that era. One of the themes of the film is the intersection between popular music and politics. While some elements of Homer’s poem can be found in O Brother (both consist of a journey home and a few incidents along the way are alluded to), the film does not much resemble its ostensible source. Wolfgang Peterson’s film Troy (2004), is also announced as an adaptation of one of Homer’s poems: the Iliad (though it also incorporates plot elements from Virgil’s Aeneid). The film mostly follows the sequence of events in Homer’s epic, with omissions (the cast of characters is vastly reduced) and some significant changes and additions (most significantly, a romance between Achilles and Briseas). But the principal events and characters are the same. Thematically, the film emphasizes the vice of pride and the importance of being remembered after one dies. There is a palpable attempt to capture both the plot and the thematic ideas from Homer’s epic poem. And some scenes and events are rendered in ways that closely resemble scenes from the poem. 1 Jonathan Romney, ‘Double Vision,’ The Guardian (May 19, 2000): https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/may/19/culture.features 1 JAMES HAROLD PLEASE CITE PUBLISHED VERSION: PREPUBLICATION VERSION: Do not cite The British Journal of Aesthetics 58.1 (2018): 89-100. It is tempting to say that Peterson’s film is more faithful to Homer’s Iliad than the Coen brothers’ film is to Homer’s Odyssey. But few would dispute that O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a better film than Troy. This raises two related questions. 1. What do we mean when we say that a film is faithful to its source? 2. Is being faithful an aesthetic merit in a film that is an adaptation of some work of literature? My view is that there are several different kinds of answers to the first question, including, importantly, story fidelity and thematic fidelity. In response to the second question, I argue that some kinds of fidelity, especially thematic fidelity, merit aesthetic praise, while others do not. 1. Background Relatively little has been written on the topic of adaptation in Anglophone aesthetics.2 This is surprising. After all, adaptation is a dominant cultural phenomenon – most films are based on pre-existing sources – and one with a long and rich history. Short stores are adapted into plays; plays into films; films into operas; songs into poems; and on and on, backwards and forwards. More important, adaptation poses important and interesting philosophical problems that bear on and interact with some of the most discussed problems in philosophical aesthetics today. There is, however, a large and vibrant literature on the topic of adaptation outside the field of philosophy, with dozens of books, thousands of articles, and at least two 2 Exceptions include: J.E. Gracia, ‘From Horror to Hero: Film Interpretations of Stoker’s Dracula,’ in W. Irwin and J.E. Gracia (eds.), Philosophy and the Interpretation of Pop Culture (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007), 187-214; Paisley Livingston, ‘On the Appreciation of Cinematic Adaptations,’ Projections 4.2 (2010): 104-127; Henry James Pratt, ‘Making Comics into Film,’ in Aaron Meskin and Roy T. Cook (eds.), The Art of Comics: A Philosophical Approach (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2012), 147-64; Tamir Zachi and Greg Currie, ‘Macbeth, Throne of Blood, and the Idea of a Reflective Adaptation,’ forthcoming in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Of these, only Livingston’s article, discussed below, offers a general theoretical approach to adaptation. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for pointing me towards Livingston’s essay. 2 JAMES HAROLD PLEASE CITE PUBLISHED VERSION: PREPUBLICATION VERSION: Do not cite The British Journal of Aesthetics 58.1 (2018): 89-100. academic journals dedicated to the field of ‘Adaptation Studies’: Adaptation: The Journal of Literature on Screen Studies, and Film/Literature Quarterly.3 Those working in Adaptation Studies seem to come primarily from English departments, but also from film, theater, and other arts programs. This extensive literature, furthermore, is almost uniformly opposed to the use of fidelity as a critical criterion. By fidelity is meant the critical question of in to what degree the film captures the significant aspects of the original work. The consensus in the adaptation literature is that we should dispose of the concept of fidelity. Here are some representative remarks: ‘Unquestionably the most frequent and most tiresome discussion of adaptation (and of film and literature relations as well) concerns fidelity and transformation’4 ‘… the field is still haunted by the notion that adaptations ought to be faithful to their ostensible sourcetexts’5 ‘In fact, one might reasonably have assumed that the “fidelity” factor no longer needed to be addressed in writing about film and literature. By this I mean not only fidelity as criterion but also the very notion that this battle needs to be refought.’6 The standard view, voiced by each of these authors, is that it has long been established that fidelity is both a bad criterion and a harmful one. Fidelity is thought to be harmful because it crowds out other, more fruitful lines of inquiry. Further, fidelity is often associated with another troublesome assumption that has plagued the academic study of film since its beginning: the privileging of the written word (particularly ‘high’ literature) over pictorial storytelling (of which films have often seemed like the lowest form). The 3 My colleague Sally Sutherland first introduced me to the field of Adaptation Studies, and I am greatly indebted to her for introducing me to this literature. 4 Dudley Andrew, ‘Adaptation,’ in James Naremore (ed.), Film Adaptation (Rutgers University Press, 2000), p. 31. 5 Thomas Leitch, ‘Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads,’ Adaptation 1.1 (2008): 64. 6 Brian McFarlane, ‘It Wasn’t Like that in the Book,’ in James M. Welsh and Peter Lev (eds.), The Literature/Film Reader: Issues of Adaptation (Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, 2007), p. 15. 3 JAMES HAROLD PLEASE CITE PUBLISHED VERSION: PREPUBLICATION VERSION: Do not cite The British Journal of Aesthetics 58.1 (2018): 89-100. exasperation comes from the sense that ordinary people, critics, and academics – who should know better! – nonetheless persist in talking about fidelity. In his paper, ‘On the Appreciation of Cinematic Adaptations,’ Paisley Livingston offers a strong defense of the fidelity criterion against these sorts of objections. He begins by defining cinematic adaptations: … I propose that a cinematic adaptation is a film intentionally and overtly based on at least one, specific anterior work … For a work to be an adaptation, many of the distinguishing and characteristic features of this source, such as the title, setting, main characters, and central elements of the plot, must be expressly adopted and imitated in the new work. As adaptations are distinct from mere copies or reproductions, they must also be intentionally made to diverge from the source in crucial respects …7 His argument for fidelity builds on this definition. The argument, in outline, is: (1) to appreciate an adaptation qua adaptation requires a comparison between the adaptation and its source; and (2) an adaptation, according to the definition, must include some intentional adoption of elements of the source; so, (3) ‘if a given adaptation is to be appreciated as a successful instance of adaptation, we should ask in what sense it has (and has not) remained faithful to the source.’8 The idea is that adaptations are intentionally related to their sources; so, critical studies of adaptations must compare the two, asking in what senses and to what extent the adaptation is faithful to the source. Livingston’s argument establishes that fidelity is a necessary, and cogent, critical approach to understanding and appreciating adaptations as such. However, we should note two important features of his view that require further discussion. First, Livingston does not attempt to argue that fidelity is (or even usually or normally is) a merit in adaptations. On 7 Livingston (op. cit.), 105. 8 Livingston (op. cit.), 112. 4 JAMES HAROLD PLEASE CITE PUBLISHED VERSION: PREPUBLICATION VERSION: Do not cite The British Journal of Aesthetics 58.1 (2018): 89-100. his view, in some cases, fidelity improves a work; in others, it harms it. Livingston discusses in some detail one of the latter cases, Roman Polanski’s 1979 film Tess, an adaptation of Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Ubervilles. In his film, Polanski departs from the source material in the way it depicts Tess’ discovery that her letter to Angel Clare has not been read. Livingston writes: ‘While this aspect of Polanski’s film does not exemplify perfect fidelity to the source – Polanski in fact diverges from and surpasses Hardy here – it does exemplify the pertinence of source/adaptation comparisons …’9 According to Livingston, fidelity is always relevant as a critical criterion, but it is not always desirable.
Recommended publications
  • DAN LEIGH Production Designer
    (3/31/17) DAN LEIGH Production Designer FILM & TELEVISION DIRECTOR COMPANIES PRODUCERS “GYPSY” Sam Taylor-Johnson Netflix Rudd Simmons (TV Series) Scott Winant Universal Television Tim Bevan “THE FAMILY” Paul McGuigan ABC David Hoberman (Pilot / Series) Mandeville Todd Lieberman “FALLING WATER” Juan Carlos Fresnadillo USA Gale Anne Hurd (Pilot) Valhalla Entertainment Blake Masters “THE SLAP” Lisa Cholodenko NBC Rudd Simmons (TV Series) Michael Morris Universal Television Ken Olin “THE OUTCASTS” Peter Hutchings BCDF Pictures Brice Dal Farra Claude Dal Farra “JOHN WICK” David Leitch Thunder Road Pictures Basil Iwanyk Chad Stahelski “TRACERS” Daniel Benmayor Temple Hill Entertainment Wyck Godfrey FilmNation Entertainment D. Scott Lumpkin “THE AMERICANS” Gavin O'Connor DreamWorks Television Graham Yost (Pilot) Darryl Frank “VAMPS” Amy Heckerling Red Hour Adam Brightman Lucky Monkey Stuart Cornfeld Molly Hassell Lauren Versel “PERSON OF INTEREST” Various Bad Robot J.J. Abrams (TV Series) CBS Johanthan Nolan Bryan Burk Margot Lulick “WARRIOR” Gavin O’Connor Lionsgate Greg O’Connor Solaris “MARGARET” Kenneth Lonergan Mirage Enterprises Gary Gilbert Fox Searchlight Sydney Pollack Scott Rudin “BRIDE WARS” Gary Winick Firm Films Alan Riche New Regency Pictures Peter Riche Julie Yorn “THE BURNING PLAIN” Guillermo Arriaga 2929 Entertainment Laurie MacDonald Walter F. Parkes SANDRA MARSH & ASSOCIATES Tel: (310) 285-0303 Fax: (310) 285-0218 e-mail: [email protected] (3/31/17) DAN LEIGH Production Designer ---2-222---- FILM & TELEVISION COMPANIES
    [Show full text]
  • 5.3 Post-Cinematic Atavism
    5.3 Post-Cinematic Atavism BY RICHARD GRUSIN In June 2002, for a plenary lecture in Montreal at the biennial Domitor conference on early cinema, I took the occasion of the much-hyped digital screening of Star Wars: Episode II–Attack of the Clones (George Lucas, 2002) to argue that in entering the 21st century we found ourselves in the “late age of early cinema,” the more than century-long historical coupling of cinema with the sociotechnical apparatus of publicly projected celluloid film (“Remediation”). Two years later, in a lecture at a conference in Exeter on Multimedia Histories, I developed this argument in terms of what I called a “cinema of interactions,” arguing that cinema in the age of digital remediation could no longer be identified with its theatrical projection but must be understood in terms of its distribution across a network of other digitally-mediated formats like DVDs, websites, games, and so forth—an early call for something like what now goes under the name of “platform studies” (“DVDs”). In his recent book on “post-cinematic affect” Steven Shaviro has picked up on this argument in elaborating his own extremely powerful reading of the emergence of a post-cinematic aesthetic (70). I want to return the favor here to take up what I would characterize as a kind of “post-cinematic atavism” that has been emerging in the early 21st century as a counterpart to the aesthetic of post-cinematic affectivity that Shaviro so persuasively details. Sometimes considered under the name of “slow cinema” or “the new silent cinema” (or, as | 1 5.3 Post-Cinematic Atavism Selmin Kara puts it, “primordigital cinema”), post-cinematic atavism is not limited to art- house or independent films.
    [Show full text]
  • A Character Analysis in Jane Austen's Emma and Amy Heckerling's Clueless Through Intertextuality
    SOCIAL MENTALITY AND RESEARCHER THINKERS JOURNAL Doı: http://dx.doi.org/10.31576/smryj.580 REVIEW ARTICLE SmartJournal 2020; 6(34):1286-1297 Arrival : 23/06/2020 Published : 20/08/2020 A CHARACTER ANALYSIS IN JANE AUSTEN’S EMMA AND AMY HECKERLING’S CLUELESS THROUGH INTERTEXTUALITY Jane Austen'nin Emma Ve Amy Heckerlıng'in Clueless’ında Metinlerarasılık Bağlamında Karakter Analizi Reference: Albay, N.G. (2020). “A Character Analysıs In Jane Austen’s Emma And Amy Heckerlıng’s Clueless Through Intertextualıty”, International Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, (Issn:2630-631X) 6(34): 1286-1297. English Instructor, Dr Neslihan G. ALBAY Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University, Foreign Languages Coordination, English Preparatory School, Istanbul / Turkey ABSTRACT ÖZET Based on the interaction between cinema and classical Sinema ve klasik eserler arasındaki etkileşime dayanarak, works, Jane Austen’s Emma and Amy Heckerling’s Clueless Jane Austen’in Emma ve Amy Heckerling’in Clueless adlı enable us to make an intriguing character analysis through eseri, yirminci yüzyılın merceğinden ilginç bir karakter the lens of the twentieth century. In her novels, Austen analizi yapmamızı sağlıyor. Austen romanlarında arazi embraced the themes of love and marriage in a society mülkiyeti, gelir ve sosyal statünün hakim olduğu bir dominated by land ownership, income and social status. She toplumda sevgi ve evlilik temalarını benimsemiştir. 19. dealt with the conflicts and problems arising from the yüzyılda yaşayan burjuvazinin ve orta sınıfın evlilik marriage issues of the bourgeoisie and middle class living in sorunlarından kaynaklanan çatışma ve sorunları ele the 19th century. Like many women writers she was almıştır. Birçok kadın yazar gibi eleştirildi, eserleri bu criticized, her works were not recognized or published sorunlar nedeniyle tanınmadı veya yayınlanmadı.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Review #37 Cannes 2021
    Network Review #37 Cannes 2021 Statistical Yearbook 2020 Cinema Reopening in Europe Europa Cinemas Network Review President: Nico Simon. General Director: Claude-Eric Poiroux Head of International Relations—Network Review. Editor: Fatima Djoumer [email protected]. Press: Charles McDonald [email protected]. Deputy Editors: Nicolas Edmery, Sonia Ragone. Contributors to this Issue: Pavel Sladky, Melanie Goodfellow, Birgit Heidsiek, Ste- fano Radice, Gunnar Rehlin, Anna Tatarska, Elisabet Cabeza, Kaleem Aftab, Jesus Silva Vilas. English Proofreader: Tara Judah. Translation: Cinescript. Graphic Design: Change is good, Paris. Print: Intelligence Publishing. Cover: Bergman Island by Mia Hansen-Løve © DR CG Cinéma-Les Films du Losange. Founded in 1992, Europa Cinemas is the first international film theatre network for the circulation of European films. Europa Cinemas 54 rue Beaubourg 75003 Paris, France T + 33 1 42 71 53 70 [email protected] The French version of the Network Review is available online at https://www.europa-cinemas.org/publications 2 Contents 4 Editorial by Claude-Eric Poiroux 6 Interview with Lucia Recalde 8 2020: Films, Facts & Figures 10 Top 50 30 European movies by admissions Czech Republic in the Europa Cinemas Network Czech exhibitors try to keep positive attitude while cinemas reopen 12 Country Focus 2020 32 France 30 French Resistance Cinema Reopening in Europe 34 46 Germany The 27 Times Cinema initiative Cinema is going to have a triumphant return and the LUX Audience Award 36 Italy Reopening
    [Show full text]
  • Dedicato a Morando Morandini Incontri
    dedicato a Morando Morandini La crème de la crème Cosa dire di questa edizione di Cannes, annunciata in pompa magna per caso (e il fiuto) hanno aiutato a selezionare film dall’interessante in su, anche festeggiare il suo settantesimo compleanno? Per lo meno che ha avuto alti perché a quelli del concorso si sono aggiunte molte opere delle altre sezioni, e bassi, anche perché festival di soli capolavori ormai esistono solo nella quest’anno di ottimo livello. Tra gli appuntamenti da non perdere ci sono si- fantasia di pochi visionari. Eppure la fortuna di una manifestazione come curamente i film italiani – L’ i n t r u s a di Di Costanzo e Dopo la guerra della Zam- quella organizzata dall’AGIS lombarda e dal Comune di Milano con la colla- brano – poi il Grand Prix Speciale della Giuria 120 battements par minute e il borazione del Corriere della Sera è di poter scegliere presentando solo una Premio della Giuria Loveless, e dalla Quinzaine il Garrel de L’Amant d’un jour. selezione di film – la crème de la crème - e in questo modo evitando titoli Ma le belle sorprese non si fermano qui. poco o niente interessanti. Una bella differenza dai poveri critici costretti per dodici giorni a sorbirsi tutto quello che c’era in cartellone! A Milano, invece, il Paolo Mereghetti Incontri Mercoledì 14 giugno | ore 18.00 | Sala Buzzati Corriere della Sera Giovedì 22 giugno | ore 20.10 | Anteo spazioCinema Paolo Mereghetti e Bruno Fornara presentano il programma della manifestazione. In occasione della proiezione di CUORI PURI, in un’edizione appositamente predisposta Saranno presenti Leonardo Di Costanzo, Bruno Oliviero e Carlotta Cristiani, per favorire la partecipazione anche degli spettatori con disabilità uditive e visive, rispettivamente regista, sceneggiatore e montatrice del film L’ I N T R U S A .
    [Show full text]
  • EDITORIAL Screenwriters James Schamus, Michael France and John Turman CA 90049 (310) 447-2080 Were Thinking Is Unclear
    screenwritersmonthly.com | Screenwriter’s Monthly Give ‘em some credit! Johnny Depp's performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is amazing. As film critic after film critic stumbled over Screenwriter’s Monthly can be found themselves to call his performance everything from "original" to at the following fine locations: "eccentric," they forgot one thing: the screenwriters, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who did one heck of a job creating Sparrow on paper first. Sure, some critics mentioned the writers when they declared the film "cliché" and attacked it. Since the previous Walt Disney Los Angeles film based on one of its theme park attractions was the unbear- able The Country Bears, Pirates of the Caribbean is surprisingly Above The Fold 370 N. Fairfax Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90036 entertaining. But let’s face it. This wasn't intended to be serious (323) 935-8525 filmmaking. Not much is anymore in Hollywood. Recently the USA Today ran an article asking, basically, “What’s wrong with Hollywood?” Blockbusters are failing because Above The Fold 1257 3rd St. Promenade Santa Monica, CA attendance is down 3.3% from last year. It’s anyone’s guess why 90401 (310) 393-2690 this is happening, and frankly, it doesn’t matter, because next year the industry will be back in full force with the same schlep of Above The Fold 226 N. Larchmont Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90004 sequels, comic book heroes and mindless action-adventure (323) 464-NEWS extravaganzas. But maybe if we turn our backs to Hollywood’s fast food service, they will serve us something different.
    [Show full text]
  • Postmodern Visual Dynamics in Amy Heckerling's Clueless
    e Interdisciplinary Journal of Popular Culture and Pedagogy Hyping the Hyperreal: Postmodern Visual Dynamics in Amy Heckerling’s Clueless Andrew Urie York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada [email protected] ABSTRACT An iconic staple of 1990s Hollywood cinema, director-screenwriter Amy Heckerling’s Clueless (1995) is a cult classic. This article examines the film’s postmodern visual dynamics, which parody hyperreal media culture and its connection to feminine teen consumerism amidst the image-saturated society of mid-’90s era Los Angeles. Keywords: Clueless; Amy Heckerling; Jane Austen; Emma; Popular Culture; Visual Culture; Film Studies; Media Studies; Postmodernism; Hyperreal 38 Volume 4, Issue 1 Hyping the Hyperreal A contemporized reworking of Jane Austen’s 1816 novel, Emma, director-screenwriter Amy Heckerling’s Clueless (1995) stands out as a notable cultural artifact of 1990s Hollywood cinema. While an abundance of scholarly articles exist on how Heckerling adapted the key plot dynamics of Austen’s novel for a postmodern audience,1 this article will largely eschew such narrative analysis in favor of focusing on the film’s unique postmodern visual dynamics, which constitute an insightful parody of hyperreal media culture and its particular connection to feminine teen consumerism amidst the image-saturated society of mid-’90s era Los Angeles. Less an adaptation of Emma than a postmodern appropriation, Clueless pays parodic homage to an oft- overlooked thematic element embedded in its source text. Transposing the decadence of Emma’s upper echelon Regency-era society for the nouveau riche decadence of Beverly Hills and its attendant culture of conspicuous consumption, the film focuses on the travails of its affluent sixteen-year-old heroine, Cher Horowitz (Alicia Silverstone), whose narcissistic preoccupations revolve around consumerism and fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Editor Recommended Texts Here Are Some Ideas for Texts and Films That
    Editor recommended texts Here are some ideas for texts and films that our language editors have recommended. These are just suggestions though so if there is a particular author or film you would rather look at, you may do so! English translations can be found in libraries and online bookstores but we encourage giving the texts in their original versions a go too - especially for 6th form submissions! Many of the films can be found online (Amazon, Mubi, Youtube, Netflix) or can be bought on DVD. FRENCH o TEXTS: ​ ​ ​ Monsieur Ibrahim et les fleurs du coran, Eric Schmitt ​ Stupeur et tremblements, Amélie Nothomb ​ Le Petit Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupéry ​ Boule de Suif, Guy de Maupassant ​ Oran, langue morte Assia Djebar (collection of short stories) ​ Le Silence de la mer, Vercors (Jean Bruller) (A-level) ​ Candide, Voltaire (A-Level) ​ o FILMS: ​ ​ ​ Entre les murs, Laurent Cantet (15) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068646/ ​ Portrait de la jeune fille en feu, Céline Sciamma (15) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8613070/ Stupeur et tremblements, Alain Corneau (12A) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318725/ Les misérables (2019), Ladj Ly (15) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10199590/?ref_=tt_pg Amélie, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (15) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211915/?ref_=tt_pg Populaire, Régis Roinsard (12A) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2070776/ Les Choristes, Christophe Barratier (12A) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372824/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Kirikou et les bêtes sauvages, Michel Ocelot, Bénédicte Galup (U) ​ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455142/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
    [Show full text]
  • 6769 Shary & Smith.Indd
    ReFocus: The Films of John Hughes 66769_Shary769_Shary & SSmith.inddmith.indd i 110/03/210/03/21 111:501:50 AAMM ReFocus: The American Directors Series Series Editors: Robert Singer, Frances Smith, and Gary D. Rhodes Editorial Board: Kelly Basilio, Donna Campbell, Claire Perkins, Christopher Sharrett, and Yannis Tzioumakis ReFocus is a series of contemporary methodological and theoretical approaches to the interdisciplinary analyses and interpretations of neglected American directors, from the once-famous to the ignored, in direct relationship to American culture—its myths, values, and historical precepts. The series ignores no director who created a historical space—either in or out of the studio system—beginning from the origins of American cinema and up to the present. These directors produced film titles that appear in university film history and genre courses across international boundaries, and their work is often seen on television or available to download or purchase, but each suffers from a form of “canon envy”; directors such as these, among other important figures in the general history of American cinema, are underrepresent ed in the critical dialogue, yet each has created American narratives, works of film art, that warrant attention. ReFocus brings these American film directors to a new audience of scholars and general readers of both American and Film Studies. Titles in the series include: ReFocus: The Films of Preston Sturges Edited by Jeff Jaeckle and Sarah Kozloff ReFocus: The Films of Delmer Daves Edited by Matthew Carter and Andrew Nelson ReFocus: The Films of Amy Heckerling Edited by Frances Smith and Timothy Shary ReFocus: The Films of Budd Boetticher Edited by Gary D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Mentions Movies – LIST 3
    The Honorable mentions Movies – LIST 3: 1. Modern Times by Charles Chaplin (1936) 2. Pinocchio by Hamilton Luske et al. (1940) 3. Late Spring by Yasujirō Ozu (1949) 4. The Virgin Spring by Ingmar Bergman (1960) 5. Charade by Stanley Donen (1963) 6. The Soft Skin by François Truffaut (1964) 7. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Mike Nichols (1966) 8. Dog Day Afternoon by Sidney Lumet (1975) 9. Love Unto Death by Alain Resnais (1984) 10. Kiki's Delivery Service by Hayao Miyazaki (1989) 11. Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola (1992) 12. Léon: The Professional by Luc Besson (1994) 13. Princess Mononoke by Hayao Miyazaki (1997) 14. Fight Club by David Fincher (1999) 15. Rosetta by Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc Dardenne (1999) 16. The Ninth Gate by Roman Polanski (1999) 17. O Brother, Where Art Thou? by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen (2000) 18. The Return Andrey Zvyagintsev (2003) 19. The Sea Inside by Alejandro Amenábar (2004) 20. Broken Flowers by Jim Jarmusch (2005) 21. Climates by Nuri Bilge Ceylan (2006) 22. The Prestige by Christopher Nolan (2006) 23. The Class by Laurent Cantet (2008) 24. Mother by Bong Joon-ho (2009) 25. Shutter Island by Martin Scorsese (2010) 26. The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick (2011) 27. The Artist by Michel Hazanavicius (2011) 28. Melancholia by Lars von Trier (2011) 29. Hugo by Martin Scorsese (2011) 30. Twice Born by Sergio Castellitto (2012) 31. August Osage county by John Wells (2013) 32. 12 Years a Slave by Steve McQueen (2013) 33. The Best Offer by Giuseppe Tornatore (2013) 34.
    [Show full text]
  • Visit Imdb.Com for Up-To-The-Minute Academy Award Updates, and View
    NOMINEES FOR THE 84th ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS Best Motion Picture of the Year Best Animated Feature Film Best Achievement in Sound Mixing The Artist (2011): Thomas Langmann of the Year The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): David Parker, The Descendants (2011): Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, A Cat in Paris (2010): Alain Gagnol, Jean-Loup Felicioli Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Bo Persson Jim Taylor Chico & Rita (2010): Fernando Trueba, Javier Mariscal Hugo (2011/II): Tom Fleischman, John Midgley Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011): Scott Rudin Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011): Jennifer Yuh Moneyball (2011): Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, The Help (2011): Brunson Green, Chris Columbus, Puss in Boots (2011): Chris Miller David Giammarco, Ed Novick Michael Barnathan Rango (2011): Gore Verbinski Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Greg P. Russell, Hugo (2011/II): Graham King, Martin Scorsese Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin Midnight in Paris (2011): Letty Aronson, Best Foreign Language Film War Horse (2011): Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Stephen Tenenbaum of the Year Johnson, Stuart Wilson Moneyball (2011): Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Bullhead (2011): Michael R. Roskam(Belgium) Best Achievement in Sound Editing Brad Pitt Footnote (2011): Joseph Cedar(Israel) The Tree of Life (2011): Nominees to be determined In Darkness (2011): Agnieszka Holland(Poland) Drive (2011): Lon Bender, Victor Ray Ennis War Horse (2011): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy Monsieur Lazhar (2011): Philippe Falardeau(Canada) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Groundhog Day (1993) 4. Airplane! (1980) 5. Tootsie
    1. ANNIE HALL (1977) 11. THIS IS SPINAL Tap (1984) Written by Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman Written by Christopher Guest & Michael McKean & Rob Reiner & Harry Shearer 2. SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959) Screenplay by Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond, Based on the 12. THE PRODUCERS (1967) German film Fanfare of Love by Robert Thoeren and M. Logan Written by Mel Brooks 3. GROUNDHOG DaY (1993) 13. THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998) Screenplay by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis, Written by Ethan Coen & Joel Coen Story by Danny Rubin 14. GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) 4. AIRplaNE! (1980) Written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis Written by James Abrahams & David Zucker & Jerry Zucker 15. WHEN HARRY MET SALLY... (1989) 5. TOOTSIE (1982) Written by Nora Ephron Screenplay by Larry Gelbart and Murray Schisgal, Story by Don McGuire and Larry Gelbart 16. BRIDESMAIDS (2011) Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig 6. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) Screenplay by Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks, Screen Story by 17. DUCK SOUP (1933) Gene Wilder and Mel Brooks, Based on Characters in the Novel Story by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, Additional Dialogue by Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Arthur Sheekman and Nat Perrin 7. DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP 18. There’s SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998) WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB (1964) Screenplay by John J. Strauss & Ed Decter and Peter Farrelly & Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Peter George and Bobby Farrelly, Story by Ed Decter & John J. Strauss Terry Southern 19. THE JERK (1979) 8. BlaZING SADDLES (1974) Screenplay by Steve Martin, Carl Gottlieb, Michael Elias, Screenplay by Mel Brooks, Norman Steinberg Story by Steve Martin & Carl Gottlieb Andrew Bergman, Richard Pryor, Alan Uger, Story by Andrew Bergman 20.
    [Show full text]