Comparing to Mulhall’s work, I feel Neaupert’s work represents a different approach: He mainly focuses on the director, and interpret the movie in light of the director’s personal attributes (e.g. his life, experiences, feelings, etc.).
Although Mulhall still discusses “the director’s voice”, he does not mention anything about the director’s personal life. Instead, Neaupert takes the biographical approach and/or impressionism as we discussed about author and authorship. For example, Neaupert provides rich information about who Truffaut is, why he wanted to make such a movie, how he made it, even how he got enough money to make it. When interpreting/evaluating the movie, Neaupert keeps comparing Truffaut’s real life and Antoine’s life on the screen. It seems that Neaupert endeavors to use such a connection/comparison to support his argument that this movie, with the “documentary objectivity”, is almost a portrait of the director’s real life experience, and can lead to real life consequences (e.g. Truffaut’s parents got divorced after the release of this movie).
This argument is very interesting. I’m thinking about whether or not it applies to designers/writers as creators. It seems unusual (at least for me) to evaluate a product in light of the designer’s personal life and his/her real life experience. For example, I don’t know who designed those products I like – e.g. Lancome perfume bottle, some apple apps, etc., I don’t know how their lives are and I don’t care either. I won’t evaluate the qualities/values of these produces by knowing their designers. An exception may be the Apple’s logo. Some people indeed traced Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak’s personal experiences to find out why this logo is designed as an apple bite by someone/something.For writers, things become more complicated.
For researchers, at least they may state their motivations/reasons why they want to do this research, which may originate from their personal lives and previous experiences. A game player may be interested in doing game studies because of his/her personal interests. But it is unusual to judge/evaluate his/her works based on his/her motivations. For other writers such as novelists and poets, things may be different.
So I’m wondering to what extent criticism can take the creator perspective. Is this perspective more appropriate under some contexts, while not so appropriate under some others?