Authorship

From this week's topic of authorship, we step away form the analysis of the text and tie in the role of the author as well. A lot of the time, we as readers or critics, take a text and give it a level of credibility, not just based on the structure of a text's discourse, but mainly because of the connection of the author. The author is the source of creativity and central meaning that we may find within a text. In Focault's What Is an Author, he states, "criticism should concern itself with the structures of a work, which are studied for their intrinsic and internal relationships"(1262). This statement displays a sense of turning away from the author and not seeing the author as the "genius" behind the formation of a text. This thought process is challenging the power of the author and the idealism that they hold the tie between reality and a text. He then brings up the point that while we are trying to break this connection between a text and the author, can the text now still be considered a work without that connection: "If an individual is not an author, what are we to make of those things he has written or said...is this not properly a work?" These two conflicting theories contribute the the controversy behind the concept of the author. We attempt to separate ourselves from the author to just be able to focus on the text, but there's always that temptation pulling us back because of social habit of tying the two together. When we go to the movies and we see that the director is Steven Spielberg, we are already giving the text a sense of credibility because we know his work, so we assume it will be a great movie. Even as we watch the movie, our previous notions might inhibit our own personal judgments of the movie. John Cassavetes and the Role of the Author mentions this as well in his analysis of movies. In this blog, the director is seen as the author of the movie or piece he has created. Here we are examining the relationship between representation and reality. The director has a vision and takes us back to how the author connect reality with what is placed and expressed within a text. An authorship analysis of a film would focus on acknowledging how the director has attributed to the film in an artistic way. To find and identify these qualities we are then forced to refer back to the author's previous works, recognizing notable patterns. Continuing this constant connection between a text and its author.

Derrida

Jacque Derrida comes off as a simple man with a complex mind. This man with fluffy grey hair and an over-sized over coat who uses humor as a distraction. A strategy used throughout the film to turn the attention from him to those who observe him through the lens. During his lecture he sarcastically announces to his class to not be "alarmed" by the "archiving machines" filming the class. When walking he comments on the style of the film guy or even just the simple fact that he should pay attention before he falls. 

I found the interviews to be the most humorous portions of the film. To me, this is when we truly get to see the real Derrida. I love the fact that he refuses to portray himself in the way that the film crew wants him to behave. He doesn't give the type of answers that an interviewer wants him to respond to. One instance, a woman interviewer asked him a general question about "love". He stated that he "could not answer such a generalized question. I'm not going to answer that." He then continued to slightly insult the interviewer by telling her what she should have asked or giving her several chances to re-phrase the question to give it more depth such as the difference between "the  who" and "the what" concepts of love. He basically could have conducted the interview by himself. 

He also has a good way of putting off a question that he has no interest of answering. He will either blatantly refuse to answer the question or will drift off into another realm of thought, distracting everyones' thought process. Derrida is good at leading the conversation so that he is able to answer the question on his own terms.

One thing I noticed though is that besides all the humor, Derrida always seems to manage to give insight on something. Whether it is about love, forgiveness, or the parts of the human body. Everything he says, whether it seems silly or doesn't make sense at first, has some type of meaning and message and I respect that most about Derrida. Even though I was not given the chance to meet him, I feel like I have learned a lot about him and a lot of insight on life that I has never even crossed my thought process.