Abstract
The final chapter in the first half of the book examines the differences between the two approaches discussed in the previous two chapters. It begins by setting out in detail the poststructuralist approach to canonical authorship that informs the book’s analysis of adaptation. Derived from the broad poststructuralist account explored in the previous chapter, this approach is situated in Benveniste’s distinction between two enunciative registers: discours, which reveals the source of its articulation, and histoire, which conceals that source. Christian Metz uses these registers to analyse how film grammar reveals and conceals the filmmakers’ articulative status. The chapter sets out how the registers can be used to analyse how film adaptation reveals and conceals the original author’s articulative status, which I call the ‘drama of authorship’. The detailed elaboration of this process is undertaken in the second half of the book. The focus in this chapter is on setting out the theoretical groundwork for this subsequent taxonomy, and on how the approach differs from, and addresses the unseen consequences of, dialogic approaches to adaptation derived from Barthes and Bakhtin.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1981 [1934–1941]. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1995 [1967]. “The Death of the Author.” In Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern, edited by Seán Burke, 125–30. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Baudry, Jean-Louis. 1985. “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus.” In Movies and Methods: Volume II, edited by Bill Nichols, 531–42. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Belsey, Catherine. 1998. “Shakespeare and Film: A Question of Perspective.” In Shakespeare on Film, edited by Robert Shaughnessy, 61–70. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Benchley, Robert. 1974. Jaws. New York: Doubleday.
Benveniste, Émile. 1970. Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables: Miami University Press.
Bloch, Robert. 1959. Psycho. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Brown, Eric C. 2004. “Cinema in the Round: Self-Reflexivity in Tim Blake Nelson’s ‘O’.” In Almost Shakespeare: Reinventing His Works for Cinema and Television, edited by James R. Keller and Leslie Stratyner, 73–85. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Buchanan, Judith. 2005. Shakespeare on Film. Harlow: Pearson.
Calbi, Maurizio. 2014. “‘In States Unborn and Accents yet Unknown’: Spectral Shakespeare in Paolo and Vittorio Taviani’s ‘Cesare deve morire’ (‘Caesar Must Die’).” Shakespeare Bulletin 32, no. 2: 235–53.
Culler, Jonathan. 2002. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge.
de Balzac, Honoré. 1830. “Sarrasine.” Revue de Paris.
Dent, Alan. 1948. Hamlet: The Film and the Play. London: World Film Publications.
Dickinson, Desmond. 1948. “Camera and Lighting.” In The Film ‘Hamlet’: A Record of Its Production, edited by Brenda Cross, 29–35. London: Saturn Press.
Eisner, Lotte H. 1969. The Haunted Screen: Expressionism in the German Cinema and the Influence of Max Reinhardt. Translated by Roger Greaves. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Feuer, Jane. 1982. The Hollywood Musical. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Foucault, Michel. 1974 [1966]. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Translated by R.D. Laing. Bristol: Tavistock.
Goulimari, Pelagia. 2015. Literary Criticism and Theory: From Plato to Postcolonialism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Heath, Stephen. 1985. “‘Jaws’, Ideology and Film Theory.” In Movies and Methods Volume II, edited by Bill Nichols, 509–14. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jorgens, Jack J. 1977. Shakespeare on Film. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lacan, Jacques. 1992. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis 1959–60. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. Translated by Denis Porter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leavis, Frank Raymond. 1948. The Great Tradition. London: Chatto & Windus.
Leitch, Thomas. 2003. “Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory.” Criticism 45, no. 2: 149–71.
———. 2005. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Adaptation *Especially if You’re Looking Forwards Rather Than Back.” Literature/Film Quarterly 33, no. 3: 231–45.
Lobsien, Eckhard. 1995. Repetition and Likeness: Phenomenology of Poetic Language [Wörtlichkeit und Wiederholung: Phänomenologie poetischer Sprache]. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
MacCabe, Colin. 1985. Theoretical Essays; Film, Linguistics, Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Metz, Christian. 1985. “Story/Discourse: Notes on Two Kinds of Voyeurism.” In Movies and Methods Volume II, edited by Bill Nichols, 543–9. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nichols, Bill. 1981. Ideology and the Image: Social Representation in the Cinema and Other Media. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Olivier, Laurence. 1948. “Foreword.” In Hamlet: The Film and the Play, edited by Alan Dent, 1–5, my pagination. London: World Film Publications.
Rasmus, Agnieszka. 2001. “‘I Could a Tale Unfold…’ From Metatheatre to Metacinema: Films Within the Films in Shakespeare on Film.” Cadernos de Traduçäo 1, no. 7: 147–68.
Rothwell, Kenneth. 1994. “Representing ‘King Lear’ on Screen: From Metatheatre to ‘Meta-cinema’.” In Shakespeare and the Moving Image: The Plays on Film and Television, edited by Anthony Davies and Stanley Wells, 211–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shakespeare, William. 1988. The Complete Works: Compact Edition. Edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stam, Robert. 2000. “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.” In Film Adaptation, edited by James Naremore, 54–76. London: Athlone.
———. 2005. “Introduction: The Theory and Practice of Adaptation.” In Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Adaptation, edited by Robert Stam and Alessandra Raengo, 1–52. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wollen, Peter. 1985. “Godard and Counter Cinema: ‘Vent D’Est’.” In Movies and Methods Volume II, edited by Bill Nichols, 500–509. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Filmography
Carry On Cleo. 1964. Directed by Gerald Thomas. UK: Anglo-Amalgamated.
Cesare Deve Morire (Caesar Must Die). 2012. Directed by Paolo Taviani and Vittorio Taviani. Italy: Kaos Cinematografica.
Hamlet. 1948. Directed by Laurence Olivier. UK: Two Cities.
Julius Caesar. 1953. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. USA: MGM.
The League of Gentlemen. 1999–2002. Directed by Steve Bendelack. UK: BBC.
Psycho. 1960. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. USA: Paramount.
Richard III. 1995. Directed by Richard Loncraine. UK: United Artists.
Paintings
Holbein the Younger, Hans. 1533. The Ambassadors. Oil on oak. London: National Gallery.
Velázquez, Diego. 1656. Las Meninas (The Maids of Honour). Oil on canvas. Madrid: Museo del Prado.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Geal, R. (2019). The Dead Author and the Concealed Author. In: Anamorphic Authorship in Canonical Film Adaptation. Palgrave Studies in Adaptation and Visual Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16496-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16496-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16495-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16496-6
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)