Conclusion

M. Minett
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"M. Minett","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197523827.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Calling into question authorship criticism’s tendency to treat undersupported claims about formal design as starting points for the deployment of an interpretive hermeneutics aimed at revealing political and expressive significance, the conclusion instead considers how a historically precise rethinking of Altman’s innovations broadens the field of questions we might ask about the possibilities of Hollywood authorship. In its recognition of elaborative authorship as a position within Hollywood filmmaking practice, the account presented here suggests a reconsideration of the nature of Hollywood norms. The conclusion argues that Altman’s novelty is best understood not as rejection or assimilation but in the context of a Hollywood cinema whose norms have always been a work in progress on multiple levels. It is not only Hollywood’s conventions and techniques that are constantly in play, contingently open to a range of modifications and renegotiations, but also its underlying principles and aims.","PeriodicalId":248930,"journal":{"name":"Robert Altman and the Elaboration of Hollywood Storytelling","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Robert Altman and the Elaboration of Hollywood Storytelling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197523827.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Calling into question authorship criticism’s tendency to treat undersupported claims about formal design as starting points for the deployment of an interpretive hermeneutics aimed at revealing political and expressive significance, the conclusion instead considers how a historically precise rethinking of Altman’s innovations broadens the field of questions we might ask about the possibilities of Hollywood authorship. In its recognition of elaborative authorship as a position within Hollywood filmmaking practice, the account presented here suggests a reconsideration of the nature of Hollywood norms. The conclusion argues that Altman’s novelty is best understood not as rejection or assimilation but in the context of a Hollywood cinema whose norms have always been a work in progress on multiple levels. It is not only Hollywood’s conventions and techniques that are constantly in play, contingently open to a range of modifications and renegotiations, but also its underlying principles and aims.
结论
作者批评倾向于将缺乏支持的关于形式设计的主张视为旨在揭示政治和表达意义的解释性阐释学部署的起点,这一倾向引起了质疑,结论反而考虑了如何从历史上精确地重新思考奥特曼的创新,从而拓宽了我们可能会问好莱坞作者身份可能性的问题领域。在它的认可详尽的作者作为好莱坞电影制作实践中的一种立场,这里提出的叙述表明了对好莱坞规范本质的重新考虑。结论认为,奥特曼的新颖性最好不是被理解为拒绝或同化,而是在好莱坞电影的背景下,好莱坞电影的规范一直是一个在多个层面上不断进步的工作。不仅好莱坞的惯例和技术在不断发挥作用,偶尔会有一系列修改和重新谈判,而且它的基本原则和目标也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信