FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W807115265> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W807115265 startingPage "438" @default.
• W807115265 abstract "Both Shakespeare in Love (1998) and Anonymous (2011) show author of Shakespearean canon ostentatiously name William Shakespeare. This inscription of authorship, in first of these films, is interpreted by Jane E. KingsleySmith as an atavistic riposte to Roland Barthes's Death of Author that evoke [s] a Romantic conception of authorship by privileging such scenes of writing (159). Anonymous Shakespearean signature (Fig. 1) is much more problematic, however, because author presented in this film is Earl of Oxford, a man who surrenders ownership of his canon to protect his political pretensions. Signing his work with name of an illiterate and uncouth actor, film's Oxford not only allegorizes Barthesian author's death, in a manner similar to Kingsley-Smith's analysis of Shakespeare in Love, but also thematizes contested nature of cinematic enunciation, one of film studies' central and unresolved epistemes (Bordwell, Narration 21-26; Metz, Story/Discourse). This presentation of authorship obfuscates ideological processes involved in film's own construction, dramatizing creative act only to mythologize it. I argue that contrasting presentations of foregrounded authorship in Anonymous and Shakespeare in Love allegorize contested theories inherent to all cinema, allowing adaptation studies privileged comparative conditions to clarify and test unresolved issues at heart of film studies.The theoretical premises upon which I base this argument are derived from Jean-Louis Baudry's understanding of realist film, within Marxist tradition of commodity fetishism, as a product that attempts to efface all traces of own construction. This theory establishes first that almost all forms of editing and storytelling constitute a reality-effect that conceals cinema's inherent transformative work. These processes are intrinsically ideological since they create impression of a seamless flowing of events in subjects1 who are placed into a created, passive position that masquerades as a creative, transcendent position. Only by revealing transformative work of cinematic apparatus can a knowledge effect that denounces be achieved (Baudry 533-34).This transformative work is potentially thematized within adaptation because of foregrounding of constructed nature of films adapted from acknowledged authorial sources. The way in which presentation or elision of authorship impacts upon film's is demonstrated by Christian Metz's understanding of Emile Benveniste's distinction between discours (discourse), act of telling, and histoire (story), narration from a hidden source, which is roughly distinction between third-person and first-person speech. This understanding highlights post-structuralist conception of realist cinema's seamless, ideological, un-authored narrative, since the traditional film is presented as story, and not as discourse. And yet it is discourse,... but basic characteristic of this kind of discourse, and very principle of effectiveness as discourse, is precisely that it obliterates all traces of enunciation, and masquerades as story (Metz, Story/Discourse 544).However, within adaptations of work of canonized authors narrative discourse's status as articulation is explicit. If a film-text is foregrounded as an adaptation of a pre-known work then a significant element of constructed-ness is therefore not obliterated. Narrative might therefore not seamlessly unfold, and discours might not masquerade as histoire, if constructed nature of adaptation's discours is foregrounded. As such, adaptation might reveal cinema's transformative work, fulfilling Baudry's argument that its inscription, manifestation as such ... would produce a knowledge effect, an actualisation of work process, as denunciation of ideology (534).For Stephen Heath, however, revelation of cinema's transformative work does not necessarily produce a knowledge effect. …" @default.
• W807115265 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W807115265 creator A5047178293 @default.
• W807115265 date "2014-04-01" @default.
• W807115265 modified "2023-09-22" @default.
• W807115265 title "Suturing the Action to the Word: Shakespearean Enunciation and Cinema's Reality-Effect in 'Shakespeare in Love' and 'Anonymous'" @default.
• W807115265 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W807115265 type Work @default.
• W807115265 sameAs 807115265 @default.
• W807115265 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W807115265 countsByYear W8071152652017 @default.
• W807115265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W807115265 hasAuthorship W807115265A5047178293 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C518914266 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C519580073 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W807115265 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C107038049 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C121332964 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C124952713 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C138885662 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C142362112 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C144024400 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C158071213 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C17744445 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C185592680 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C199033989 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C199539241 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C2780791683 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C518914266 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C519580073 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C55493867 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C62520636 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C94625758 @default.
• W807115265 hasConceptScore W807115265C98184364 @default.
• W807115265 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W807115265 hasLocation W8071152651 @default.
• W807115265 hasOpenAccess W807115265 @default.
• W807115265 hasPrimaryLocation W8071152651 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W111182961 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W1152710830 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W1505378920 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W1512736376 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W1947084096 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2103349260 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2287724385 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2293916432 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2295527422 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2377628799 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2482581785 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2485754094 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2499668237 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2566024108 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W271131263 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2921088357 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2984223899 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W581858112 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2772920735 @default.
• W807115265 hasRelatedWork W2903490527 @default.
• W807115265 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W807115265 isParatext "false" @default.
• W807115265 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W807115265 magId "807115265" @default.
• W807115265 workType "article" @default.