Triana-Toribio Popular Auteur Iglesia

Triana-Toribio Popular Auteur Iglesia - Ariel Transmission...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–12. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Ariel Transmission Coversheet www.inf0trieve.com/ariel New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film Volume 2 Number 3 © 2004 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.13 86/ncin.2.3.1 3 9/ 1 r1:he Spanish ‘popular auteur’ Alex de la Iglesia as polemieal tool Peter Buse University of Salford Nuria Triana-Toribio University of Manchester Andrew Willis University of Salford Abstract This article looks at how Alex de la Iglesia can be studied using reviewed auteurist strategies. Such a study has to take into account how he constructs his persona as director in a process which deviates greatly from the images and roles allocated to directors by traditional auteurism. This persona has, in its turn, been the perfect complement to output that has often been seen as a non—legitimate part of Spanish cinema for its reliance on non—realist, popular genres and blatant ‘homages’ to Hollywood. From the constructions of his persona, we propose to look at the adjustments that both his new auteur style and his output impose on the defini- tion of an identity in which official/ unofficial discourses on Spanish cinema are continuously engaged. We also suggest that this process must involve a revision of the scholarship on Spanish auteurs that is in currency. 1. The remains of the 1990s: the Spanish situation In Spanish cinema today there are two developments worth remarking on. One story has a depressingly familiar ring to it, while the other may be something new, whose meaning is still open to interpretation. First, the familiar ‘scenario’: as the Partido Popular’s government continues to deregulate cinema and television companies withdraw their financial support from the film industry, the mood has turned sombre and the word ‘crisis’ once again appears in newspapers and in the mouths of members of the Spanish film industry.1 It seems that the optimism of the late 1990s, engendered by the emergence of new talent and many new film-makers who found a young Spanish audience, has dissipated into a generalized uncertainty if not total disillusionment. The new thing is that some of those same film-makers who started making films in the early to mid 1990s have stopped being new. Some of them still keep us waiting, others have given up under these difficult con- ditions, but most importantly some of them now have a body of work that we can reflect upon. For instance, Chus Gutierrez has now made five feature films, as has Julio Medem; and Alex de la Iglesia’s seventh, El crimen ferpecto, is currently in pre-production (October 2003). Up until now, these markedly different film-makers have more often than not been taken as a group, or perhaps more misleadingly, as a ‘generation’.2 NCJCF 2 (3) 139—148 © lntellect Ltd 2004 139 Keywords contemporary auteurism Spanish cinema Alex de la Iglesia 1 One might argue that Spanish cinema has rarely been out of cri- sis in one way or another. The current incarnation of crisis can be dated from the annus horribilis of 2002 when revenues and audiences for Spanish ciueina plummeted after the excellent 2001. In 2003 the film journal Academia entitled its winter issue ‘La crisis’. See also Garcia (ed.) (2003). See Heredero (1999) and also Valenti (2001) for examples of this generational nomenclature which is so ubiquitous. Smith made this claim during a talk delivered at the Cornerhouse Cinema, Manchester. 15 March 2003. However, now that the dust of the 1990s has settled and many of that so- called ‘generation’ have drifted away, we can more easily examine what remains; skim the cream from the top of the generation, as it were. That is to say, now that these film-makers have made more than two or three films, we can begin to consider them in terms of a body of work. The existence of a substantial body of work is important because it allows film critics and academics to look for patterns and recurrent the— matic or stylistic features in film—makers and in doing so, to construct them as auteurs. According to Robert Stam, auteurist theory has it that ‘intrinsically strong directors will exhibit over the years a recognizable stylistic and thematic personality’ (Stam 2000: 84). julio Medem, whose thematic preoccupations and filmic style fall into an easily recognizable European art cinema topos, did not have to wait long to be acclaimed as an auteur. Now that Gutiérrez and de la Iglesia have also produced fifth and sixth feature films, the time may be ripe to subject their careers to the strategies of the auteurist study, to test this body of work against the same sort of criteria faced by Almodévar, whom Paul Julian Smith has recently called the only remaining European auteur.3 This approach will allow a more individualized look at these film-makers who are too often referred to as ‘the new generation’ or ‘the film-makers of the 1990s and beyond’ without any further elaboration or nuance. One might well ask, why auteur studies now, and if so, what sort of auteur study? These two questions are far too infrequently posed in con- temporary Spanish film studies, especially in Spain, but also in the UK. Too often in the study of Spanish cinema there is not enough acknowledge- ment that approaches to film that are anchored in authorship are both historically contingent - the product of a specific set of polemics in Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s and in Movie in the early 1960s - and, since the 19 70s, increasingly discredited, having been displaced by subsequent waves of structuralism, post-structuralism and Lacanian psychoanalysis, all suspicious of the unified creative subject the idea of the auteur presup— poses. ln the field of middle—brow journalism, in contrast, the idea of the auteur has remained significant, and today reviewers in the UK broad— sheets will constantly refer to directors without questioning their author— ial status. But it is hardly the politique des auteurs they are implicitly invoking. Instead it tends to be the traditional View of the European auteur, which pre-dates the 1950s work of Cahiers du Cinema and which we might call ‘art-house auteurism’. This tradition, which is alive and kicking in language-based academic departments, if not in film studies departments, embraces, for example, Lang and Renoir, but only in their pre-Hollywood phases, whereas the point of auteurism in the 1960s and 1970s was that certain directors ‘transcended’ the limitations imposed by working in genre cinema for Hollywood studios. Vestiges of this art-house auteurism are particularly strong in some writings on Spanish cinema. For instance, editor Peter Evans unashamedly subtitles the 1999 collection on Spanish Cinema ‘the auteurist tradition’, although he does acknowledge the existence of another, popular, tradition (Evans 1999: 2—3). An auteurist approach dominates another important recent text on Spanish cinema, Rob Stone’s Spanish Cinema. This author devotes auteur- 140 Peter Buse, Nuria Triana-Toribio, and Andrew Willis driven chapters to establishment personalities such as producer Elias Querejeta and director Carlos Saura, as well as to newly canonized figures such as Julio Medem. Stone praises the former as ‘the first credit on the important films of Carlos Saura, Victor Erice, Jaime Chavarri, Manuel Guitérrez Aragén, Ricardo Franco, Moncho Armendariz and many others’ (Stone 2002: 1,). Querejcta’s association with familiar figures from Spain’s art—house tradition confirms his importance and in turn their association with him acts as an endorsement of their value, in a mirroring effect. Authorship is therefore at the centre of Stone’s view from the outset. He later, even more clearly, evokes the romanticism of some early author— driven critics when he enthuses that ‘It’s all there in Julio Medem’s eyes: a much darker creative sensibility than the texture of his films might suggest’ (Stone 2002: 158). Not for Stone the colder, structuralist notion of Medem as a system of signs: he confidently asserts that it is the ‘real’ person, Medem, who is the ultimate source of the work. He makes this even clearer by detailing how Medem’s personal life may be read against the films. Medem is the artist in control of what we see on the screen, his life experiences forging his artistic expression. Logically then, without those personal experiences the films would be lacking in merit. These approaches to the collaborative products of the film industry give little credit to the team that has been involved in the labour behind the images on the screen and the social structures working to form the supposed vision of individuals, not to mention the processes whereby the ‘authorial’ persona is constructed through publicity and criticism. If we are trying to revisit the notion of the auteur today in Spanish cinema it is in order to challenge this outmoded and yet still highly preva- lent notion of the art-house auteur. We therefore propose to ask what it might mean to think of Alex de la Iglesia, whose first feature film, Accién mutante/Mutant Action, was premiered in 1992, as an auteur, precisely because he is an auteur very unlike Julio Medem. It should already be clear that we do not engage in such an activity without reservations. We admit from the outset that we view the concept of the ‘auteur’ with a good deal of suspicion and recognize that its function is to organize cinema for film critics and teachers of cinema, and that tied up with the concept is a whole set of assumptions about genius and creativity, not to mention gender, which makes the concept of the auteur at best anachronistic if it is not approached with eyes wide open. However, since it is very difficult to escape the formal structures by which knowledge of cinema is organized, we hope to attack Spanish auteur studies from within rather than without. 2. The immature auteur and popular cinema The case study of Alex de la Iglesia takes us into exciting and uncharted waters because this director’s work poses serious difficulties for existing paradigms for the study of auteurs in Spanish cinema: it quickly becomes apparent that Medem’s, Gutiérrez’s and de la lglesia’s work cannot be sub- jected to the same kinds of auteurist methodologies because we are not comparing like with like. To explain what we mean, it might be worth- while at this point to contextualize the debate within which the separation between de la Iglesia and some of his contemporaries takes place. The Spanish ‘popular auteur’. Alex de la lglesia as polemical tool 141 Scholarship on Spanish cinema, for the most part, still subscribes to an unquestioned dichotomy which privileges art-house cinema and neglects its supposed opposite, ‘popular’ cinema. As a result, this scholarship, whether it concentrates on the broader development of Spanish cinema or on individual film-makers, tends to rely heavily on the high art concept of auterism at the expense of an understanding of cinema as a mass form. The persistence of auteurism as a critical paradigm and a methodology is not limited to the study of Spanish cinema, but extends to much research into World cinema in general. One need only look as far as the recent boom in Iranian cinema which is rarely discussed without mention of the key auteur Abbas Kiarostami. This attitude is the product of decades of Europe’s cultural rhetoric of aesthetic and authorial uniqueness, which set its products apart from the industrial ‘standardization’ of Hollywood. However, recently there has been a move in European cinema studies to reassess the ‘non-auteurist’ genre cinema in order to understand better the entirety of European production. The need to dismantle this paradigm has become more urgent in light of recent cinema production in Spain. Since the late 1990s particularly, Spanish cinema has witnessed the emer- gence and consolidation of film-makers who, like de la Iglesia, have achieved considerable box-office success by appropriating Hollywood for- mulae and mixing them with those of the autochthonous non-art-house cinema while not relinquishing being perceived as auteurs. These directors are clearly making films for audiences, that is, films with a potentially broad appeal rather than the art-house auteurs whose films appeal and play to a narrower and supposedly more culturally informed and engaged audience. The case of Santiago Segura, a sometime collaborator of de la Iglesia, is instructive here. The writer, director and star of Torrents: (:1 brazo tonto de la lay/Torrents: The Dumb Arm of the Law (1998) created a film whose broad appeal and financial success has been matched for the most part by its critical marginalization. The general horror with which the Torrents phenomenon is met in middle—brow Spanish critical circles (Segura fails to even hit the radar of commentators outside Spain) should of course come as no surprise, given the 'art—house auteurist’ biases of the establishment. However, it is worth recalling that the original French auteur critics championed the energetic and supposedly vulgar films of Sam Fuller and Robert Aldrich, precisely as an antidote to the critical orthodoxy that praised so-called ‘quality’ French productions, many of them literary adaptations. It is depressing to think that the current critical situation in Madrid has not yet reached the stage of Paris in 1959, but it also gives us hope that a concept of the ‘popular auteur’ may still have some polemical force in the Spanish context today As we have noted, directors like Julio Medem are relatively painlessly absorbed by the traditional auteurist methodology which sees the auteur as the individual ‘responsible, in the last instance, for a film’s aesthetics and mise-en-scéne’ (Stam 2000: 85) and conceives film-making as a mode of self-expression which rejects or subverts formulae of the kind that com- mercial and genre cinema provide. If these are the parameters within which to study a film-maker, then what is to be done with an output like de la Iglesia’s which is at once resolutely commercial and draws freely on 142 Peter Buse, Nuria Triana-Toribio, and Andrew Willis Hollywood codes and genres, and yet which also receives retrospectives at the Lincoln Center in New York (2002) and for these reasons is acclaimed by some, already, as auterist, art cinema? We know that he is perceived and talked about as an auteur among his contemporaries and by Spanish and foreign critics and that his films are highly self-conscious and referen- tial to cinema of many sources both in technical accomplishment and themes. Nevertheless the consensus on de la Iglesia is that he is not taking seriously the responsibilities of a Spanish/European auteur. The exemplary symptomatic statement on the oeuvre of de la lglesia has been recently articulated by Tomas Fernandez Valenti: Since Alex de la Iglesia is the most talented film-maker (el Cineasta que mejor filma) of his generation, he might yet make something better than what he’s produced thus far, provided he does not give in to puerility: La Comunidad, for example, is too lacking in maturity to be consistently good. (Valenti 2001: 48) The frustration with de la Iglesia, who is apparently a potential auteur who refuses to conform to the qualities of an auteur, is captured perfectly by Valenti’s paradoxical and perhaps incomprehensible claim that de la Iglesia is at once the most accomplished film-maker (qua majorfilma) of his generation and has yet failed to make a decent film. It is a strange sort of judgement - to acclaim a film-maker’s talent without being able to point to any firm evidence - but Valenti is not alone in this stance. Chus Gutierrez confirmed this point of view in a conversation with the writers of this article during the Spanish Film Festival in Manchester in March 2003: de la Iglesia is a good film-maker who makes bad films. Or, more precisely, he fails to make mature films, if we paraphrase Gutierrez, using the vocabu- lary of T.S. Eliot which Valenti deploys.‘i In 1993 American critic Dudley Andrew pronounced that ‘after a dozen years of clandestine whispering we are permitted to mention, even to discuss, the auteur again’ (Andrew 1993: 77). It was André Bazin who called for auteurism to be harnessed to wider approaches to cinema in his influential 'La politique des auteurs’ when he stated that: I feel that this useful and fruitful approach, quite apart from its polemical value, should be complemented by other approaches to the cinematic phe- nomenon which will restore to a film its quality as a work of art. This does not mean that one has to deny the role of the auteur, but simply give him back the presupposition without which the noun auteur remains but a halting concept. Auteur, yes, but of what? (cited in Caughie 1981: 46) Andrew puts it another way: ‘the author may have been primary for him, but only as a tortion in the knot of technology, film language, genre, cul- tural precedent, and so forth, a knot that has in the past decades grown increasingly tangled’ (Andrew 1993: 78). Our goal concerning Alex de la Iglesia is to contextualize his work, to engage with the ‘tangled knot’ and discover ways of unpicking the complex meaning of ‘a film by Alex de la Iglesia’. In the remainder of this article we outline some of the main The Spanish ‘popular auteur’. Alex de la lglesia as polemical tool 143 Eliot proposes ‘matu- rity’ as a measure of artistic worth in his essay ‘What is a Classic?’ [1945] (19 75). avenues of approach we expect to take and difficulties we expect to encounter in our study of de la Iglesia, of which this is a preliminary state- ment of intent. Although our study will focus primarily on de la Iglesia’s critical reception and symptomatically ambiguous status within Spain as well as the use (and abuse) of popular genres in his films, the problems sketched out below are further complicating factors. 3.1 The borders of the oeuvre In the first place, we have to decide what to include and what to exclude from the oeuvre of de la Iglesia: should we consider his comic—book output, his novel and other writings, the video games he has designed, his short films on the Internet, his web page and his work for theatre and television as an artistic director? In an age of multimedia is it intellectually justifiable to limit ourselves to the analysis of conventional feature-length films? Particularly when the film-makers in question have declared a deep inter- est in technology and use it at every opportunity? We have decided to take all of his output as part of our research because we believe that by tracing the work of de la Iglesia back to its days in television production our project will demonstrate how cinema production in Spain is not divorced from ‘lower’ forms like television, but symbiotic with it. However the ques- tion then arises: is he always and in every circumstance an auteur or does this depend on the medium he is using? 3.2 Equipo maldito Another complication comes in the form of a clear contradiction within the ‘author-function’ of this director: the ‘de la Iglesia’ signature in fact represents a collective oeuvre and Alex de la Iglesia himself has often drawn attention to this fact, for instance by describing how he works with Jorge Guerricaecheverria on every script: No. no. together. together. We do everything together Then we write dia- logues with the same system. It is very difficult to tell afterwards who wrote what. And from there we rewrite everything fifty times. (Ordofiez 199 7: 105) Of course, the additional cultural prestige attached to being a writer—direc— tor is only partly diluted by the fact that the writing is done in collabora- tion. These comments are all the more interesting when placed next to de la Iglesia’s own reservations about French auteur theory: As opposed to the guy who styles himself an auteur. I'll always be in favour of the team. One of the most unfortunate legacies of the Neuvelle Vague was the ‘politique des auteurs’, according to which it seems that everything done by a supposed auteur was automatically right. I know that everyone likes the Nouvelle Vague, but we shouldn't forget its shortcomings: the total devalua- tion of sets and studio shooting, the promotion of a horrendous lighting model and above all, in their work as critics for Cuhiers they tried to make us forget that films are the product of teamwork. When work is divided and allocated, you get an increased specialization and better results. (Ordéfiez 199 7: 85—86) 144 Peter Buse, Nuria 'l‘riana-Toribio, and Andrew Willis He also punctures the ‘romantic’ idea of the ‘author-function’ by describ- ing the arbitrary coincidences that led him to be the director in that team: Suddenly, Pablo [Berger] had the opportunity to study in a film school in New York, and he’s still over there. I’ve often thought that if that had not been the case, he’d be the director and I’d have stayed as artistic director. (Ordoficz 1997: 88—89) it should be added that in a later unpublished interview with the writers of this article (May 2003), de la Iglesia very firmly claimed ultimate responsi— bility for mise-en-scéne as well as editing. The former may follow logically from his background in artistic direction and skills in set design, but the latter begins to suggest an overarching vision centred in a single individual. 3.3 The star persona An additional knot, a further contradiction: in spite all these assertions about collective production, the star persona of de la Iglesia has been care- fully cultivated by the films’ publicity machine and by the director’s website, which also promotes his star persona at the expense of the team. In Spain this path has been well prepared by Pedro Almodovar, Whose carefully crafted ‘director persona’ has been realized by way of photo montages where he appears playing the parts of all his characters. In the case of Kika, this ploy reaffirmed the centrality of the director’s vision in all aspects of the film, implying that each character was merely an aspect of Almodovar’s personality (see Smith 2000: 169). In Spain, de la Iglesia enjoys an equally high profile as a star director. Film magazines often publish images of him in the director’s chair organizing mise-en-scéne, or behind the camera setting up that all-important shot. However, there is often something ambiguous or ironic about these carefully orchestrated images: for instance, in a Cinemam’a article devoted to his recent ‘Western’, 800 builds/800 Bullets, publicity shots show him hamming it up on the set dressed as a comic book—style Native American chief (Casanova 2002: 110). Various public appearances and public statements, often epigrammatic and deliberately trivializing, build up a very distinctive media personality: mischievous, playful, perhaps a little immature. Alex de la Iglesia is clearly a commodity. These images and photo opportunities mark the fact that he is as much a part of the marketing strategies for his films as the stars or the genre. However, he is not an art- house property like Saura or Medem, whose names raise altogether more sober expectations in the filmgoer. Due to the more commercial nature of his films’ subjects, de la Iglesia’s authorial signature can be marketed much more widely. He is someone who is recognized on the streets of Madrid due to his high media profile, perhaps most readily by the young audiences who make up the largest pro- portion of contemporary cinema-going audiences. Like Alfred Hitchcock, de la Iglesia has cultivated a persona, and like Hitchcock this may have led to critics perceiving him as a frivolous figure and by extension one unable to make ‘serious’ cinema. It should be remembered, of course, that Hitchcock’s critical status suffered when he moved to Hollywood to make overtly commercial projects. Critics felt he had become too commercial and The Spanish ‘popular auteur’. Alex de la Iglesia as polemical tool 145 they cited his supposedly crass, personal appearances at the opening of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents television series in the 1950s and 1960s (which made him an instantly recognized figure) as proof of his commercial debasement. In 1965, when Robin Wood published his book Hitchcock’s Films, he still felt that he had to defend the act of studying Hitchcock by answering his own question, ‘why should we take Hitchcock’s films seri- ously?’ (Wood 1965: 9,). Alex de la Iglesia is clearly aware of some of these issues himself and the DVD version of his El dia dc 1a bestia (199 5) contains an arch—Hitchcockian imitation or send—up, where de la Iglesia appears in an armchair surrounded by skulls to introduce the film in a manner remi— niscent of the ‘good evening’ introductions of the English director to his TV show. In direct contrast to this knowing play-acting, de la Iglesia’s voice also provides a sequence-by-sequence directorial commentary on the film, which suggests authorial/ authoritative guidance in its making. Of course, the DVD phenomenon has done much to re-centre the director as source of meaning with the increasing availability of directors’ cuts of films, and it is important to assess de la Iglesia in this light: he is at once the professional wit and the dedicated metteur—en-scéne. Like Hitchcock, then, de la Iglesia may stiffer because he is too recogniz- able, too popular. Rob Stone, Whilst. not. totally dismissing de la Iglesia’s films, disapproves of his tendency to cultivate celebrity status rather than perform the role of artist, and sees him as part of a wider trend of directors who produce work that is often self-consciously idiosyncratic They avoid overt political subjects and disdain a literary basis for their films, revelling instead in the audio-visual stimuli of comics. cartoons. video games and the Internet. re-defining ideas of Spanish film-making with the help of new tech- nologies and an eye on the international market. (Stone 2002: 154) The critical world now acknowledges that some of Hitchcock’s finest films were produced during his period in Hollywood as he aimed for international markets with his work, and continued to experiment, as he did during his English period, with new film technologies (see Wollen 2002: 67). The idea of the auteur as a marketable part of the film product is further developed by Timothy Corrigan in his A Cinema without Walls. He argues that auteurs have become increasingly situated along an extratextual path in which their commercial status as auteurs is their chief function as auteurs: the auteur-star is meaningful primarily as a promotion or recovery of a movie or group of movies, frequently regardless of the filmic text itself. (Corrigan 1991: 105) So, rather than simply dismissing de la Iglesia for his media-savvy or cele- brating his playfulness in the construction of his persona, we can consider how he offers an interesting insight into the shifting status of cinema texts across the globe. In Spain he is considered by many a relatively frivolous figure who should buckle down and make some thoughtful serious films, yet in the United States he can be seen as a key figure in contemporary 146 Peter Buse, Nuria Triana-Toribio, and Andrew Willis Spanish cinema, for his films, as already noted, have already been given a retrospective at the Lincoln Center, New York. Of course, they were screened with subtitles, a simple act which instantly bestows art-house status on the most popular of works once they shift out of their original distribution territory. 3.4 National boundaries Finally, it is worth mentioning briefly that studying this film—maker/signa— ture/team, as has already been intimated, involves calling into question some of the basic assumptions about what constitutes so—called ‘Spanish national cinema’. De la Iglesia, like many of his contemporaries, produces films resistant to the ‘national’ categorizations of European film studies, for they are at once replete with indigenous Spanish references and deliberately outward looking, drawing on non-Spanish (and non-European) stylistic sources. When such extra-Hispanic reference points are reassuringly cos- mopolitan, as they are in Julio Medem’s Los amantes del Circulo polar (199 7), the blurring of national boundaries causes very little discomfort. However, when the references to Spanish and to American culture are both deliber- ately popular or ‘low-brow’ as they are in de la Iglesia’s La comunidad (2000), then the anxieties of the border police begin to set. in. As Triana- rToribio suggests in her introduction to Spanish National Cinema, de la Iglesia on the one hand affirms his debts to Holly wood, and on the other is not par- ticularly Inarketable for his ‘otherness’, since his very local allusions and intertexts are only intelligible to a native audience: his films are at once not Spanish enough and too Spanish to be included in a canon of national cinema. (Triana-Toribio 2003: 2; emphasis in original) 4. The uses of Alex de la Iglesia After what we have outlined above, it should come as no surprise if we conclude that it is not going to be possible to tackle the question of Alex de la lglesia (as an exemplary instance of recent commercially successful and aesthetically ambitious Spanish directors) if we do not reconsider some of the basic parameters of Spanish cinema studies. For that reason we are taking de la Iglesia as a borderline case, located on the cusp of the auter— ism/popular Cinema divide and informed by all the difficulties that it poses to unreconstructed art-house auteurism. What we hope is that as well as shedding light on de la Iglesia’s cinema, this case study of 1 990s and early twenty-first-century Spanish cinema will contribute to reorient debates on Spanish cinema in general and help to break the tight conceptual grip of traditional auteurism. Works cited Academia (2003), 33 (Winter). Andrew, D. (1993), ‘The Unauthorized Auteur Today’ in Collins, J. et al. (eds.) Film Theory Goes to the Movies, London: Routlcdgc, pp. 77—85. Casanova, M. (2002), ‘gQuién sobrevivié al InarInitako westernP’, Cinemania 83 (August), pp. 110—14. Caughie, I. (ed.) (1981), Theories oanthorship, London: RKP/BFI. The Spanish ‘popular auteur’. Alex de la lglesia as polemical tool 147 Corrigan, T. (1991), A Cinema Without Walls: Movies and Culture after Vietnam, London: Routledge. Eliot, TS. (1975), Selected Prose ofT.S. Eliot, ed. Frank Kermode, London: Faber and Faber Evans, P.W. (ed.) (1999), Spanish Cinema: the Auteurist Tradition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garcia, L.A. (ed.) (2003), Once miradas sobre la crisis y el cine espanol, Madrid: Ocho y Medio. Heredero, CE. (19 9 9), 20 nuevos directores del cine espanol, Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Ordéficz, M. (1997), La bestia anda suelta: [Alex de la Iglesia lo cuenta todol, Madrid: Glénat. Smith, P}. (2000), Desire Unlimited: The Cinema of Pedro Almodo'var, 2nd edn., London: Verso. Stam, R. (2000), Film Theory: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell. Stone, R. (2002), Spanish Cinema, Harlow: Longman. Triana-Toribio, N. (2003), Spanish National Cinema, London and New York: Routledge. Valenti, TE. (2001), ‘Iulio Medem: El cine del Azar’, Dirigido por, (September), pp. 48—5 7. Wollen, P. (2002), Paris Hollywood: Writings on Film, London and New York: Verso. Wood, R. (1965), Hitchcock’s Films, London: Studio Vista. Suggested citation: Buse, P., Triana-Toribio, N., and Willis, A. (2004), ‘The Spanish “popular auteur”. Alex de la Iglesia as polemical tool’, Nevv Cinemas 2: 3, pp. 139—148, doi:10.1386/ncin.2.3.139/1 Contributor details Dr Peter Buse is a member of the European Studies Research Institute at the University of Salford. He is the author of Drama + Theory (Manchester University Press, 2001) and editor of Ghosts: Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, History (Macmillan, 1999). He has published articles in Textual Practice, Cultural Critique, European Journal of Cultural Studies and Iournal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism. Contact: School of ESPACH, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK. E-mail: p.buse1@salford.ac.uk Dr Nuria Triana—Toribio lectures on Spanish Cinema at the University of Manchester. She has published articles in the Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, Film History and Iournal of Hispanic Research. She is the author of Spanish National Cinema (Routledge, 2003). Contact: Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: nuria.m.triana.toribio@man.ac.uk Mr Andrew Willis, based at the University of Salford, is the co-author of Media Studies: Texts, Institutions and Audiences (Blackwell, 1 9 99), co-editor of Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste (Manchester University Press, 2003) and Spanish Popular Cinema (Manchester University Press, 2004) and editor of Film Stars: Hollywood and Beyond (Manchester University Press, 2004). Contact: School of Music, Media and Performance, Adelphi Building, Peru Street, University of Salford, Salford M5 6EQ, UK. E-mail: A.Willis@salford.ac.uk 148 Peter Buse, Nuria 'I‘riana-Toribio, and Andrew Willis Copyright of New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film is the property of lntellect Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a lieteenr without the copyright holder'e express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 12

Triana-Toribio Popular Auteur Iglesia - Ariel Transmission...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 12. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online