Authorship: How Green Was My Valley

I HAVE SAILED THE SHIP:

EXPLORING THE PAST AND PRESENT IN AUTHORSHIP

Barthes proclaims that meaning is only found through the death of the author. “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author”. Barthes explains that the author’s personal meaning or history must be removed in order for the reader to experience the full text. However, Foucault challenges the function of an author by determining the definition of authorship in relationship to meaning. Auteur theory gives authorship to a director; that his voice is heard beyond the confines of the script. However, when examining How Green Was My Valley, it appears that authorship cannot be completely disassembled or equated to a specific “author”. Rather, authorship translates across several different levels to create its own discourse. Authorship in this film is exemplified through four levels:

Novelist à Screenwriter à Director à Translation

I would like to argue that these four levels rely upon the expanse of the large conversation over time. To some extent, authorship ghosts through each medium to its destination. The destination is a collaborative authorship between the Novelist, Screenwriter, and Director. Most notably, I intend to suggest that all “authoring signatures” are reliant upon the destination (or translation). Quotes from the film will be followed by: (GV).

            The Novelist is the original work, How Green Was My Valley, written by Richard Llewellyn. Often, origins (or centers) of a work are sought for; i.e motivational prompting to pursue writing on this particular topic. In Llewellyn’s case, there were claims that he based the book on his own personal experiences. After his death, this was found to be false. It was apparent that research was a heavy component to the novel. We can never know what an author intended to express. However, any formulation of research, the author then becomes the “scriptor”; No longer the nucleus of creative thought, but merely a transcriber of the historical/cultural moment. This particular historical moment might reflect the UK Coal Miner’s Strike of 1926. The Strike lasted 10 days with an unsuccessful attempt to force the government to prevent wage reduction and worsening conditions for 800,000 locked-out coal miners. The author is no longer the focus of creative influence; the author is merely a "scriptor” and a vessel through which a script is born.

            The Screenwriter, Phillip Dunne, pulls the text from the Novelist and the historical moment. Yet, there must be some differences. The story structure (plot or character) frames a man looking back on his childhood reflecting on the past. Authorship can changed based on perspective. We don’t all see the same thing. Barthes explains that the essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins," or its creator, "but in its destination," or its audience. The film tells of the Morgans, a close, hard-working Welsh mining family. The story highlights the destruction of the environment in the coalfields, and the loss of a way of life and its effects on the family. It must also be considered that there is a remarkable difference in mediums from novel to screenplay in its writing styles and structures. The intended audiences of both levels infer that authorship is not one dimensional but instead is ghosting stories, people, and ideas from many historical moments.

            In a film medium, it is important to recognize the authorship of the Director. The director, John Ford, also functions as an Auteur (as detailed by Auteur theory). Auteur theory implies that the directors is the primary author of a film, “as he is the only creative voice loud enough to be heard through studio interference over the collaborative process.” The structure of a screenplay is textual and the director’s role is to realize the story in whatever medium. Film was at such an early age during the 1941 release of How Green Was My Valley, was heavily influenced by the postmodern movement. One of the tenets of Postmodernism is to “emphasize a problem of the philosopher cleanly distinguishing knowledge from ignorance, social progress from reversion, dominance from submission, and presence from absence”. Many of these ideological shifts prompted structural changes in cinematography. Most often, a script provides a vessel and the director provides the motivation to move the vessel. Directors fluctuate between many different duties, but most consider they are making art; the words on the page are the tools and marble, and the director completes the sculpture. “The way a film moves should have some relationship to the way a director thinks and feels.” Ford was a pioneer of location shooting and the long shot which frames his characters against a vast, harsh and rugged natural terrain.

            The last piece of this authorship puzzle is the most crucial aspect of the justification of authorship. Beckett states: “what matter who’s speaking, someone said what matter who’s speaking?” Though there may be a paradox between the real author and author-function, it is definitively inferred that someone is speaking. As art is a collaborative, therefore authorship is a combination of many voices. Voices of a Novelist, a Screenwriter, and a Director have value and “always with a purpose.” The translation of any cinematic feature details several sub-levels of authorship. For example, the film is dubbed over in English rather than in its original vernacular, Welsh. It’s possible that cultural differences and backgrounds change textual meaning. Another element of the film that might translate differently might be that the motion picture is in black and white compared to 21^st century colored, high-definition, and technologically advanced artistry. It’s possible that the film is received considerably differently based on its quality. In fact, the film was very popular after its release but holds no consideration now because of its low quality picture. Translation is the final level at which authorship can exist. For “a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination”.

The author provides and articulation of a moment of a large conversation over time. The Novelist, Screenwriter, Director combined methods of storytelling (music, singing, and narration) to “see things as they were.” (GV) “Who’s to say what is real and what is not … for my friend’s voices echo in my ears.” (GV) Authorship encompasses the ghosting memories that are articulated by so many people in so many ways. I am the destination, and I have translated the “authoring signatures” to see the multitude of influences not singular to one author, but is a vessel. I have sailed the ship built, constructed, and designed by the many others before me. For “who is there and cannot look back?” (GV)

Political Economy and Studio 60

Media supports and advertises the political economy through unique structures that are culturally effective. Much of this subversion is equated with our mental involvement in the media. This generated false consciousness is attributed to the lack of knowledge or investment in the political and economic structures that surround us. In “Studio 60”s Pilot episode, arguments arise over the quality of material verses the general approval based on audience ratings that support the company’s overall salary and business structure. Faithful audience members live in a bubble since previous sketches have enforced structures and ideas that are “funny”; funny is apparently the necessary characteristic of successful entertainment. We have then constructed our own world according to what we see. What we view is how we see our world or how we wish our world was. It’s no surprise that the show tanked after the Pilot, because the bubble was burst once that false consciousness was broken. This was achieved through an interruption during a popular live television sketch, in which the director proceeded to explain to the audience the corruption and failure of the media. The reveal was a political attack on the motives and mission at Studio 60, in an effort to educate the audience and free them from the oppressive structure.

The oppressive structure held three distinct roles: 1) maintaining decorum, 2) maintaining and increasing ratings/profit, and 3) providing programs on a basic entertainment level. Once the deed had been done, the Board of Directors met and discussed the tactics to achieve these goals. This political structure proved that if these roles are not met, the “laborer is just a cog in the machine” and is easily replaceable. The director was immediately fired. Additionally, there was some tension for others who were in fear of losing their job. The ravings of the director supported the studio’s structure by removing the link easily. Though the threat of unemployment bars economic consequences, being fired for reasons such as this will ruin careers and reputations. Yet, emancipation would clearly free us from the oppressive structure through the knowledge received. The popular culture demands laid out by Studio 60 before it went to chaos was controlled by a system to maintain its place for the masses. Though popular culture comes from the masses and is supported by the masses, the masses have been brainwashed into false consciousness that leads them to believe that pop culture is steady and never changing. Any freedoms granted are to be a critical analysis from the voice of the people. Studio 60 was revived by a critical approach from those beyond the structure as defined. Even the new President and the new writers are representing the masses with a different perspective. This cascaded to changes within the system.

The changes within the system were not revealed to be successful. In fact, there is a threat of failure that can eliminate this emancipation. Alienation occurs when capitalist structures dissolve creativity. Because creativity comes from thinking and practice, Studio 60 will pursue ideas and practices that may save the wreckage from the chaos of falling cogs in the machine. The new President may lose her job and everything may tank, yet this is a chance that ‘creativity’ will take. Before the director interrupted the show, the capitalist structure had a firm grasp on any creativity (or lack thereof) at Studio 60. Pretty much, everything’s going great so why take any chances. Most say that when economies flourish so do their arts and literature. However, media has capitalized and built on our loyalty to the arts that the flourishing doesn’t happen. Television quickly creates the demand for the same old stuff because “it’s funny” or “it’s a classic”. Therefore, we have become laborers that commodify the media. We are now part of a transaction that enlists us to participate in the media only to re-assert the structure and dominance of mass media. Much like the years during the Depression, creativity boomed because it commodified the laborers in hopes that they will create and support a new structure by thinking critically about the failures and success of the structures from before. Therefore the writers are given the responsibility to re-think part of the structure to retain and maintain the integrity of the studio.

So why did the show tank? Why did 30 Rock survive? As audience members, we are coping so that political structures will re-affirm the status quo. This opiation slows down any change possible because we neglect and choose to be ignorant in the ways that these structures work. We would rather buy into it than trying to change it, so it supports the structures motive to be “funny”. In comparing value (that is, moral value and/or meaning) between both similar television sitcoms, it’s quite noticeable that Studio 60 recognizes the needs for change, improvement, system deficiency, and hope. These values have emancipated the false consciousness set up by the system as a way to re-think and re-create the system. However, we prefer to play it simple and easy and stick to what’s entertaining. 30 Rock hardly encourages the audience to think on its own. Its characters, messages, scenes, etc. are impossible realistic structures of life and therefore have no real face value other than entertainment.

By consuming media, it maintains its power hold. We get lost in media that provides for us an escape from the structures we consider to be burdening. We prefer to get home from a hard day’s labor and do nothing but watch television. Yet, this participation is only us giving our labor freely to a system that takes advantage of that false consciousness. The attraction to television has only supported the structures outline of the status quo. This outline has targeted the audience to participate so closely in television that it has become culturally imperative. So many television series, how can you follow them all? Yet, you are not culturally educated if you don’t watch the awards shows, the latest moves, Duck Dynasty, etc.? All these fictional shows are re-enforcing the structure that builds them. So, does anyone still watch the news? We are the drones of the media enterprise; a cog in the machine so easily replaceable.