Below is a full transcript of the critical feedback from peers and tutors. I have included my own responses to their comments to maintain the continuity of the argument.
RENEE: What a creative idea, Claire.
I can see this being a really cool lesson for your students. What’s interesting to study is the perceptions of the various audience members. Will they automatically assume that this kid is a ‘good boy’ because he has short, clean cut hair? Does the audience automatically make assumptions because of the aesthetics of the subject?
I don’t fully understand the theory behind your film — I was having one of those ‘explain it to me like I’m a two year old’ moments — but I think this artefact could be used as a teaching tool. In that way, I think it serves your audience well.
Well done. The finish line is in sight
HELEN: Now I don’t know what this means exactly, but I preferred the first version, just the walk.
As he put the ballet shoes/gun/steak pudding in his bag I felt that it was wrong. I wanted to make it my own story, and now I’ve had other stories imposed upon it
So, if given the chance I want to be the sole author?
MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE
OK, I have made a few changes to the blog. Initial feedback seems to suggest that I haven’t explained the point of it very well SO I have added the “process” part of the blog to the main page to help you understand what I was trying to achieve more easily.
The artefact itself is experimental- it doesn’t outline any of the reading I have been doing. It is purely an attempt to “author” something without attaching any meaning to the images you see. There is no fixed meaning. As I was shooting this I had the 4 narratives submitted by my authors and made something that hopefully fits all 4. It might help to read the proposal as well.
Otherwise it just looks like a shit movie with voice-overs.
KAREN: Hi Claire,
Was trying to think about how to introduce your piece…. Could hear the voice in the SAW films giving the instructions (I’m a fan) and then imagined video game style visuals where your character is filmed 360. You know like how you get options for characters and weapons/cars/whatever at the start of a game?
in my head it’s perfect, but it is late, and I’m waiting for my film to export… f*** I’m tired.
MY RESPONSE TO THAT
Ken, I added the silent one, I didn’t delete anything.
Nice idea Karen, but it made me want to cry. I very much understood that in this unit it was process of making something – the making as research – that was meant to be experimental. Now the video just looks like shit bit of A level coursework that nobody gets. I could include an introduction by me to make it clearer but in a way that makes me more an author of the film and that’s exactly what I was trying to avoid.
RENEE: I still stick with my first impression, which is that this artefact will serve as a very cool teaching tool and that it will spark a lot of ideas and conversation.
KAREN: I agree with all of the above. It doesn’t need any more contextualisation. It’s an excellent resource for an A level lesson and I can imagine my own students really enjoying the challenge of decoding. I can imagine lots of competition and arguing too which is always great to have in an A Level class.
AND ME AGAIN…
I guess I’m going to have to really make that essay do all the work and the feedback videos should do some of the job. I know it’ll be interesting for students to analyse but that’s not the point of the lesson. The point is to consider whether, if we give all the ownership to the reader, we lose something in the creation or success of the text. So actually, the fact that it’s a bit dull proves my point. kinda.
TIM: The film is not what you need feedback on, in my humble. As I understand your project, the film is your catalyst which generates the debate over ownership, and the remaining steps in the process you outline in your blog would seem to me to be much more important in terms of proving or subverting your theoretical proposition. Hence, the efficacy of the film won’t be known unless you use quite a controlled feedback process from your authors. As a visual text artificially constructed to prove a point, your film does the job admirably and by offering each participant in the group the same initial footage to stimulate their creative juices you have a good controlled experiment going on here. I wish more of my BA students had had such a clear idea of keeping ones research valid! You’re doing a great job but the bulk of your work is going to be in how you control, collate and analyse the feedback from your authors.
I have always struggled teaching Barthes in my film auteurship studies because he directs his analysis at written texts… I know the codes etc. are equally applicable to other forms, but I think film has to be considered entirely separately in terms of auteurship. I stress the importance of the metteur vs. auteur differentiation for my students… the political and cultural messages implicit in the text are the ones that cause the deeper divisions in audiences, not the differing interpretations of the plot line or character motives. I mention this because I think entrenched old farts like me see film and the word authorship and assume a particular debate is about to ensue. Your project is definitely about authorship, but only from that narrative element… and you might think about defining the parameters of your research more precisely in your title or your preamble. Does that make sense Claire? I think your project has real value and has huge mileage and re-use value with a wide range of students. It is also very easy for them to accomplish a product (visual text) and get them working on a well-defined research project in preparation for research-based projects in HE.
I’m insanely jealous!
MY RESPONSE: Thanks Tim, really useful. It’s true – I am only looking at narrative authorship … I think that’s really because I started this project from a literary perspective. In my written exploration the texts I have focused on are more to do with narrative authorship as opposed to autuerism. I have focused on mostly on Barthes, Keats, and Foucault and I try to explain the relationship between the critic and the author in both those mediums. The criticism of authorship in film is following a similar pattern to that of literature but like, 200 years later… I think.
I have been thinking a lot about the feedback I have received and largely the opinion is that the text itself appear to be doing something other than what I intended. I have a couple of ideas about how I will make it clearer. Any feedback would be great
1) A big problem, I think, is that the voices of the authors seem to be narrating in response to the images when actually it was the other way round. Perhaps I need to show the original mini-film then the bulk of the 4 authors giving their interpretations before launching into the final, longer film. The different voices of the authors are meant to permit the viewer to see a multiplicity of meaning. The different stories were meant to either undermine each other and cancel each other out OR allow the viewer to attach to one voice or one meaning of their choosing – this would come out in my audience feedback. perhaps by showing the authors separate to the character will make that clearer? I could then have them re-appear half way through the film then show the second half.
2) Another (more cheesy?) way might be to have the action play out with an authors voice then rewind and play again with a different story being narrated…?
3) I thought I could do an introduction either filmed or voiceover explaining the project and taking the viewer through the various steps of the project explaining how the actor and location were chosen then show the first mini-film followed by the authors giving their stories then explain what I did to ensure that all their meanings were incorporated. I’m not totally keen on putting myself in it as it undermines the concept of not-authoring but if it makes the process clearer and helps people understand the project then it might be worth it.
I can do all, neither or some of these – it won’t take too much work. Whaddya think?
TIM AGAIN: NO! The text is doing exactly what you wanted it to do and the outcomes are unpredictable because we, when placed in the position of audience, are not … used to / comfortable with / capable of …directing the narrative as opposed to responding to it. That is why one assumes that the voice over is responding to rather than directing the narrative – its a convention that we are so entrenched in we find it hard to disabuse ourselves of. (Terrible use of English but you know what I mean).
You don’t need to address 3. The project aims and process are perfectly clear after one reading of your notes. The choice of character and location are essentially unimportant for the experiment and the initial film you posted was fairly neutral. I love the way some viewers read a sinister meaning into the guy walking along the road in parallel.
2 Don’t think that is a way forward. It would just look like 4 different voice-overs for the same finished film.
1
Quote:
The different voices of the authors are meant to permit the viewer to see a multiplicity of meaning. The different stories were meant to either undermine each other and cancel each other out
Multiplicity of meaning works fine and is evident. Did you expect the voices to cancel each other out or contradict each other? I think they should all have equal validity – and they do – with the rider that your audience will apply their own experience and expectations to choose a ‘preferred’ version, but that will not negate the others if the audience is engaged with the ‘experiment’ rather than the film as a finished text.
I had fun trying to attach an ‘identity’ to each narrator / director from their individual demands of where the text and character should be going.
Did you video each ‘author’ narrating their version? Could you show each of these videos and have the initial film running picture-in-picture in one corner of the screen? Just long enough of each to be able to identify their voices and the key elements of the story as they saw it developing. Follow the four segments with the finished clip that you have produced. No need to explain further I don’t think.
I hate giving feedback like this. There is no opportunity to pause and clarify. If you don’t catch my drift, please ask. If you do and you think its crap – I’d still be happy to hear from you debunking it and that would help clarify things for you too!
ME MAKING SENSE OF WHAT TIM SAID:
I think I get what you mean Tim – I hadn’t thought of picture-in-picture, that’s a really good idea. I think I might do that and still take a bit of “narration” off the film itself. I think it suffers from having voices going all the time – the reader doesn’t get the space to make their own narration because of the warring (word?) voices. I need to be careful though; the camera operator was very chatty so the VO is hiding a lot of bossy shouting.
KAREN: I’ve just read through your blog and watched the films and when everything is read through properly it becomes clear what you are aiming to achieve. The only thing which confused me a little here and which can be easily rectified is the original A to B is missing from this blog. In fact I think careful labelling of the pieces is the only blocker here to understanding for people like me who don’t tend to read the instructions and just dive right in.
I would have the videos embedded in an updated ‘process’ post. So under STEP 1 embed A to B. Under STEP 2 upload the original video responses and so on…. This way it is fool proof and you don’t need to change thing. It would also be really interesting to see your notes/storyboards to show your involvement in the authoring process. Do you think it would be a good idea to upload them?
It seems that maybe your blog presented in this way might be the artefact presented for assessment? It’s a research experiment so you need to see it as a whole process to get the most out of it. When I looked at it on it’s own I misunderstood the purpose of the artefact. Looking at the feedback from others, they say the context you give on the blog make the project clear.
So for me the research experiment is great and that is what you should present as your artefact rather than just the film. Therefore adjustments at this stage are only with the presentation of what you have already done, not re-doing anything.
What do you think?
ME:
That’s good news. Without wanting to sound defensive, the original A to B was there in the steps but when I copied it from the process page to the home page it got lost.
You’re totally right though. I think restructuring the blog is a good idea – I put the vid on the homepage because it is the artefact but it’s pointless if it’s going to get misinterpreted as a result. Perhaps I need to have the proposal and intro to the project on the home page and then maybe have pages that take you through the process a step at a time… do you think that would be better? I’m sure there’s some quality irony here with me wanting to exactly control what people interpret my project to be about… feel free to mock me.
I still think I will do as Tim suggested and include the original mini-text as a frame within a frame to make it clearer what the authors are responding to.
DONAL: And I’m genuinely interested in the first A-B template that you started with for your ‘authors’…In this original set of shots, my own feeling is that what it told me was just how hard it is to eliminate authorship because even after you have relinquished so many other elements, the choice of angle, lens and length of shot still contains authorship. The best example of what I mean from the original sequence is the shot of the shoes walking. This choice, focuses on a specific action from a particular angle – surely this alone invites the viewer to consider that choice and what it might mean. Now it can mean many things but what I’m saying is that the way it is shot alerts the viewer that this is more than just information. The director is making the viewer see the story in a particular way.
I know this is like saying that any choice a director makes is authorship by this definition and obviously there are levels i.e. some shots contain more ‘meaning’ than others, but it seems to me what is really interesting about your artefact is that it has revealed just how difficult it is for a director to eliminate herself/himself entirely from authorship. Is it impossible to be 100% neutral as any kind of director of anything? Do you always create meaning in a selection of shots? Are there any solutions? C.C.T.V. style footage? I dunno, just my late night ramblings.
MY RESPONSE: I know what you mean Donal. It is absolutely an impossible task. Once you point a camera in any given directions including and eliminating things from shot then you are guiding the story. What i will say though is that i started with an action – a guy walking – and then I just shot it as many ways I could. I kept the stretch of path he was walking quite limited and filmed from a pretty full range of angle and distances without deliberately doing anything fancy.
What I discovered from the authors though is that because things like looking at his feet and filming from across the road don’t imply anything specific (they are just the accepted ‘language’ of a character moving from one place to anther) meaning wasn’t necessarily placed on these shots. It’s really only my friend Ed (who only watches films with subtitles in which there is NO STORY) who read into that.
But yes, you’re right as soon as you start making decisions, you are authoring. That’s kind of where I started with this whole project (see page 2 or 3). What I have tried to do is keep any authoring to a minimum. The location was chosen on the day, the kid wasn’t given any guidance on what to wear. I had to storyboard … you still have to plan but I tried not to “choose” anything that meant anything. If you see what I mean.
LEANNE: Your blog’s great and I really liked your artifact idea- will definitely use it. I like how you have incorporated your English head into your work, which makes it a great resource for English or Film.
Loved the opening intro about Duffy- saw her at one of those GCSE Poetry Anthology events and she was soooo disappointing in terms of performing her poetry. Dead. Monotone. A shame as I really like her poetry but I guess after Hagard and Zephaniah she was on a loosing battle from the get go.
I went around looking at your project the wrong way- looked at A to B (two of them) first and then Helen 3-is that right?
Your proposal doc was very clear and I understood what you were aiming for- are all of your proposal forms that clear? Mine always seem sketchy.
Many people have said what I would have said but how are you planning to manage your feedback as you have quite a lot of it here?
MY REPONSE: well, Leanne, the feedback I have here is going to help me reshape the blog and I am going to reedit the film a little bit so that the whole process is shown – the original film first, the authors, then a version of the final film but with a little less VO. It works better when there are gaps for the new viewer to think.
The bulk of feedback will be from the authors themselves (to see of they still feel it is their character and their story) and then I will show a silent version to a class and see what they say different ideas they get from the film. Then I will show the authored version to a class and see if they tend to agree with one version of events or whether they feel there is room for them to author it. Which actually means SUCH A LOT LEFT TO DO.
THEN I RESHAPED THE VIDEO AND THE BLOG AND ASKED FOR MORE FEEDBACK
Ok, so. I have just re-ordered my blog: http://aquestionofauthorship.blogspot.com/ so there are a few things I would like feedback on
1) Do you understand the point of the project from the first page?
2) Do you think that the number of pages and the (Proposed) content of those pages covers everything you might want to see or know?
3) MAYBE ONE FOR THE TUTORS - is it better to have all my reflection on one page and then have the videos and transcripts in an appendix?
4) Can you think of a better way to organise this? I am open to ideas
5) Should I NOT include the feedback from my readers (Ed and Helen) at the end of the video? Yesterday I thought it was a good idea, today I think maybe I’ll just house it all on the appropriate page and end the video when he strokes the water (but perhaps with a title card directing you to where the feedback is)
Any help from anyone would be good. Ta
FROM TIM: 1) Always understood the point - it is now abundantly clear (if that's good English)
2) I think everything is here ... can you sense the 'but' hurtling through the ionosphere ... but I'd really like to know a bit more about Barthes' original premise and how he presents any example / experiment. Does Barthes (ahem) POSIT the notion that the author presents a text with a preferred reading - or a deliberately ambiguous text? Did you have in mind a preferred reading in your original direction of your actor? Do you feel any ownership, as the original author of a 'narrativeless' text?
Are these questions bollocks, sorry?
4) Think the organisation of the blog pages and the composite film work very well and are a user-friendly, complete package.
4/5) can’t suggest any better ideas but really want to read more on your response to the feedback - from the writers especially. In my opinion, their feedback is more relevant than your students' - hope I haven't missed something there!
Its a great project and much more 'masterly' and research-oriented than my diatribe on political cinema. Nice job. Have not forgotten to include my students but all the FE guys had deadlines today. I'll try and catch a group tomorrow.
MARK: I like the way you've knitted together 'readings'/'writings' with realisation Claire. And I like the fact that you've remained true to your October question.
It occurs to me that the aim to destroy the 'point of origin', however, is continually sabotaged by the realist mode of enunciation. In other words the conventional grammar of filmmaking makes it possible for your many 'authors' to assume the authorial role - to insert themselves into authorial 'discourse' perhaps.
So maybe those films that (arguably) are most successful in de-centring the author may be those which use an experimental mode - like Last Year at Marienbad, or Meshes of the Afternoon. Ironically though, we don't think of these without invoking 'Renais' and 'Deren'…
So have you produced something which fails in its mission, but succeeds as an experimental exploration?
MY REPONSE TO MARK: I'm sure it's quite bonkers and risky to say so Mark, but I think I disagree with you..?
A quick shufty round the Internet tells me that the films you mention (Last Year... especially) are quite heavily authored. it's just that the narrative isn't pinned down. Films that raise a lot of questions and ambiguity tend to draw attention to the author (Wikipedia says that the marriage of the husband and wife duo who made Meshes, split up because she received more authorial credit) - people want to know the true meaning. I remember watching Mulholland Drive with a housemate (who I hated, she was 40, bitter, and called Pam*) who insisted at the end of it that we "work out what had happened." We sat through an interview with Lynch being asked about what it meant and his responses were infuriatingly "amah, consider the lily" to the point where my housemate got VERY ANGRY INDEED. Richard pointed out that the Dogme 95 films (where the director must not be credited) create an enigma around the source of authorship that in a way draws more attention to the author. Perhaps that is the fault of under-confident readers or readers who don't want to 'get it wrong'.
Barthes says something about how pinning down the intended meaning is 'victory to the critic" and I think experimental films that generate more critical discourse encourage us (and reviewers) to focus on authorship.
THEN I SAID THIS:
hmmm... I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean here. Do you mean that because the shots and style are so trad (and boring) it's like a blank canvas.... that if I had been more visually creative then they would have found it harder to insert their narrative into the film?
You're right of course. I had thought of that. In fact I have thought of 101 reasons why project is bollocks but I’m being a bit -fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la about that in a bid to not go completely MAD WITH FEAR over the next 48 hours.
RICHARD: But, to return to Barthes, he does talk about 'readerly' and 'writerly' texts in S/Z.
MY REPONSE: He talks about a lot of things in S/Z! Most of which were way over me.
I guess what Tim is asking is what does Barthes think the writer should do... and I guess what he thinks is that the writer should create writerly texts instead of readerly ones which is, I hope, what I have done. Also this idea is similar to Keats' Negative Capability albeit and more linguistically focused one. S/Z is a linguistic analysis, pretty much...And what Mark said about the conventional grammar of film making... I guess I am using a language in the same way a poet uses a language and what I have done is made the most conventional word choices, given the reader (or "writer") very little to go on - that blank canvas again - which allows them to make up their own meanings.
There was a moment when I thought this project should have been about semiotics and ambiguity... but I stopped myself. I had to. But it certainly would have been interesting to analyse it from that angle.
MARK: Nope, you can't disagree with me, because I was so tentative, with my "arguably" and my acknowledgement that those two experimental films always conjure up their respective 'authors' - the disagreement was already baked in!
I guess I was conjecturing (did it again, see?) that maybe some form of chaotic enunciation would successfully de-centre the stable 'authorial voice' (like The Cut Ups, perhaps). But you're right, of course, if that 'chaotic enunciation' takes the form of a product that has some kind of cultural or exchange value, then the product becomes situated in debates around to whom artistic credit can be attributed.
Is this a debate that might enable you to evaluate what you've done any differently?
Your participants in your film are all happy to step up and assume an authorial role and create a story for your character, although I notice that they often use the present tense: "he's just had a fight with his mum" - almost as if they're commenting on his 'independent' existence. Is that significant in terms of your aims/conclusions?
Even if you try to be really radical in form and style in order to obliterate the idea of the 'author', if you do this in the form of a book/film/play people are still going to want to talk about who made it.
