Geeks logo

A Filmmaker's Guide to: Roland Barthes

Film Studies (Pt.66)

By Annie KapurPublished 3 years ago 4 min read
Like

In this chapter of ‘the filmmaker’s guide’ we’re actually going to be learning about literature and film together. I understand that many of you are sitting in university during difficult times and finding it increasingly hard to study and I understand that many of you who are not at university or not planning on it are possibly stuck of what to do, need a break or even need to catch up on learning film before you get to the next level. This guide will be brief but will also contain: new vocabulary, concepts and theories, films to watch and we will be exploring something taboo until now in the ‘filmmaker’s guide’ - academia (abyss opens). Each article will explore a different concept of film, philosophy, literature or bibliography/filmography etc. in order to give you something new to learn each time we see each other. You can use some of the words amongst family and friends to sound clever or you can get back to me (email in bio) and tell me how you’re doing. So, strap in and prepare for the filmmaker’s guide to film studies because it is going to be one wild ride.

Roland Barthes

Who is he?

Roland Barthes was a theorist and critical thinker, an author and a very intelligent human being who theorised the idea that we should stop linking the author or creator of a certain work and their biographical information to their artwork/book/film etc. in order to get an unbiased view. We should separate the art from the artist entirely.

Is this productive?

Yes and No.

Yes - this shows that we do not need to understand the author in order to understand the work itself. For example: this means that works of literature can be published anonymously and be examined without biographical speculation and authored books can be written without speculation about whether it is an autobiographical piece or not. This means that it is less stressful for the author to write a novel that involves some autobiographical truth as the speculation will not be there. This makes it easier for traumatic experiences to be noted into literature and fictionalised. It also allows us to enjoy works by authors/filmmakers/singers etc. that have done possibly shady things and separate the artist from the artwork.

No - this shows that we do not need to understand anything about the author or creator of the work including things like the social situations and contexts that the writer/creator etc. was in when they were growing up. For example: this would be a counterproductive theory when we read "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee or watch "Schindler's List" by Steven Spielberg because they require social and historical contexts and cannot be separated from their artists. Harper Lee's work is based on actual experience and thus it is required in order to understand the underlying message of the book and Steven Spielberg is Jewish and because of his identity, this film becomes even more important.

When you’re looking at “The Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes, you will notice that his work is maybe a little on the extreme side and does not take into account that sometimes the contextual information is important in understanding the underlying meaning of the book/film etc. Let us have a look at some films in which this would be an entirely plausible theory to take into account when analysing them:

  1. There Will Be Blood
  2. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
  3. The Harry Potter Series
  4. Cloud Atlas
  5. No Country for Old Men

These are just a few examples of films that you could not possibly link to the autobiographical information of the filmmaker because of the fact that they are either very far away from their own contexts or they are based entirely in fantasy.

But there are a number of films where it is important that we do not separate film from filmmaker and these include but are in no way limited to the following:

  • Get Out
  • Malcolm X
  • Lady Bird
  • Andrei Rublev
  • The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

So we can see, that sometimes it is a good idea and sometimes it is not. You will have to decide when you watch a film whether this is productive or counterproductive to understanding the underlying meaning of the film.

Further Reading:

Barthes, R (1993). A Roland Barthes Reader. UK: Vintage Classics

industry
Like

About the Creator

Annie Kapur

190K+ Reads on Vocal.

English Lecturer

🎓Literature & Writing (B.A)

🎓Film & Writing (M.A)

🎓Secondary English Education (PgDipEd)

📍Birmingham, UK

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.