{"id":2770,"date":"2019-04-10T15:48:05","date_gmt":"2019-04-10T15:48:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/endcrawl.com\/blog\/?p=2770"},"modified":"2019-05-16T15:31:47","modified_gmt":"2019-05-16T15:31:47","slug":"myths-gender-screen-culture-collaboration-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/endcrawl.com\/blog\/myths-gender-screen-culture-collaboration-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Myths of Gender and Screen Culture: Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Other columns in this series:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Part 1:\u00a0The Myth of Gender<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Part 2: The Myth of the F-Word<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Part 3: The Myth of Collaboration I<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Part 5: The Myth of Equality<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

As I<\/span> discussed in the last column<\/span>, the myth of the single male genius precedes moving image culture, and leaves little room for appreciating the nuance of collaboration.<\/span><\/p>\n

There are, of course, other kinds of collaborations in filmmaking that are worthy of further discussion. We need only consider the debate between New Wave film critics Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael to get a general sense of the different approaches to auteur theory. <\/span><\/p>\n

Sarris was wholly of the belief that the director is a film\u2019s author, while Kael \u2014 a natural provocateur \u2014 explicitly challenged that assumption. Even today, the nuances of their professional relationship and critical positions are still being unpacked by critics like<\/span> Richard Brody at the <\/span>New Yorker<\/span><\/i><\/a> and<\/span> Justine Peres Smith at <\/span>Vague Visages<\/span><\/i><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The issues at the heart of this debate have never really gone out of vogue, and I have no real interest in reducing this to yet another \u201cTeam Sarris\u201d or \u201cTeam Kael\u201d memorandum. What I do think is of interest, in terms of the questions of diversity that came to the fore during<\/span> my year of watching films predominantly made by women<\/span><\/a>, is how the roles of key figures in artistic and technical roles other than director are often overlooked.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

I am by no means suggesting that we should diminish the role of the director; at this particular moment in film history we are seeing a long overdue acknowledgement and recognition of work not just by women, but by people of color and other groups traditionally excluded from cinema\u2019s devotion to the single male genius model. <\/span><\/p>\n

Whose gaze is it?<\/h4>\n

It would, in fact, be a highly suspicious proposal to depreciate of the role of the director when we finally have filmmakers like Ava DuVernay, Ryan Coogler, and Jordan Peele making such extraordinary, history-making breakthroughs for diversity in mainstream cinema, not only in terms of critical praise but of box office success. But looking at some of the key collaborators these directors have worked with, what I find increasingly fascinating is how the collaborators\u2019 identities complicate the idea of gendering films in line with their director\u2019s identity.<\/span><\/p>\n

For instance, <\/span>Creed<\/i><\/strong> \u2014 Coogler\u2019s extraordinary 2015 expansion of the <\/span>Rocky <\/i><\/strong>franchise \u2014 was shot by cinematographer Maryse Alberti, whose excellent work on that film should make it difficult to reduce to a simplistic discussion of male or female gaze, despite its director\u2019s gender and the orthodox alignment of boxing films as masculinised. (Similar musings can be made regarding her contributions to Darren Aronofsky\u2019s 2008 film <\/span>The Wrestler<\/i><\/strong>.)<\/span><\/p>\n