“Change Clothes”: Rethinking Kuleshov’s And Astruc’s Male Cinematic Constructor
camera-stylo looks to the author as genius, a figure that is gifted with knowledge and feels a duty to share it with the rest of the world. Astruc believes that the filmmaker is the new author and holds power in producing meaning. So, what is the audience’s responsibility? Does an author really express if there is no audience to receive? Although, Astruc believes film has a future in the popular sphere; for him, the technologies of 16mm and TV allow the viewer to explore filmmaking/film viewing in different ways. The filmmaker, for Astruc, is one of modern middle class means: a man that can “possess a projector” does so with a certain level of time and money. The lower-classes of people, the working classes, will they fit into this future of Astruc? Yes, this exclusion is noticeable. Once again, it is pointing to the fact that for early film theorists, the cinematic medium is for the male genius.
(My excerpt comes from my fourth page, last paragraph)
Here, I apply Astruc’s ‘classical’ film theory to our cinematic landscape today: a diverse, multi-gendered one. If camera-stylo positions the author with intellectual power, where do folks that don’t go to the cinema regularly(lower socioeconomic classes), fit into this equation? Additionally, Astruc’s exclusive use of male pronouns, positions the filmic philospher as one that is masculine. What about the female audience members as well as film directors/producers/screenwriters?