Film Matters: Please tell us about your article that is being published in Film Matters.
Michael Stringer: My article looks at the films of Wes Anderson, and it tries to use parts of his very recognizable style to problematize elements of auteurism. Wes Anderson is often seen through the lens of auteurism, but I think there’re parts of his work that challenge this approach. So, I found his films to be an interesting opportunity to trouble auteurism from the inside, so to speak. I look at how Anderson repeats a lot of techniques, and I try to say that this repetition accomplishes more than we usually attribute to acts of repetition.
FM: What research and/or methodologies do you incorporate in your article?
MS: I definitely take up an auteurist approach with this article, but I also try to brush up against the edges of that approach. The research was mainly focused on the academic discourse around Wes Anderson, and that work really highlighted for me how complex Anderson’s films are under the surface. I also relied on other thinkers to develop some of my rhetorical tools, and I found the work of Michel Chion and Michel Foucault very helpful for this essay (I promise that I also read people who aren’t named Michel).
FM: Describe the original context for/when writing this article while an undergraduate student.
MS: I wrote the original version of this paper for a class on auteurism. Wes Anderson was one of the filmmakers that we studied for the course, and I was happy to get the chance to dive into his body of work more critically. Later in my undergrad, I developed the essay further in an upper-year course that had us revise an earlier piece of writing. I was able to break down the essay more precisely in that context, looking at how to place pieces of analysis into a larger critical conversation. That really helped me take the argument in a new direction and eventually consider publication.
FM: How has your department and/or institution supported your work in film and media?
MS: The University of British Columbia has a wonderful film studies program, and I always found the room to develop new ideas in the range of courses it offered. I did part of my undergrad in philosophy, alongside film studies, and many of my film courses encouraged blending that side of my degree with film. Sometimes my attempts to bring these two together would work, and sometimes they didn’t work at all, but the ability to workshop these approaches really changed how I thought about film. The guidance of my instructors has been invaluable in developing my thinking about film, and they’ve sent me in the direction of some fascinating topics and thinkers! The department was also very supportive of student film clubs, and I got involved with the Undergraduate Film Students Association (UFSA) through one of my first film classes. With UFSA, we hosted lots of fun film events, held an annual symposium, and even developed a podcast. The department was very supportive of all of these efforts, helping us build a great film community.
FM: How have your faculty mentors fostered your advancement as a film scholar?
MS: Dr. Lisa Coulthard has been incredible in helping me develop this essay and pursue my interest in film studies more generally. I developed the second version of this piece in one of her classes, and her precise feedback really gave me the tools to totally restructure my argument. I remember revising the thesis again and again until I triumphantly emailed her that I’d finally got it down! She encouraged me to really break up my ideas, send them in new directions, and then maybe come back from the deep end a little bit. She has also been immensely supportive of my applications for grants/scholarships and graduate programs.
I’d also like to say a big thank you to Dr. Brant Strang, who taught the auteurism course where I first developed this essay. He really pushed us to think differently about our selected filmmakers. Also, Dr. Christine Evans and Dr. Chelsea Birks have both been incredibly generous with their time and support, and they’re always ready with the most insightful reading-list recommendations.
FM: How has the Film Matters editorial and publication process impacted the development/evolution of your article?
MS: Feedback from the Film Matters editorial board has been extremely valuable in refining this piece and getting it to work as effectively as possible. The feedback was especially helpful for developing my own voice within academic writing, which is something I’m certainly still working on. The specific comments from reviewers and attention to detail all helped pinpoint what needed work, while also pointing to what was already working. So, that kind of guidance was very important.
FM: What audience do you hope to reach with your Film Matters article and/or what impact do you hope it has on the field of film studies?
MS: I’m very interested in exploring how films can act as kinds of respondents to theoretical positions, forming counterexamples or developing novel ideas in their own right. That’s an undercurrent that I think motivates a lot of this piece, and I hope the essay reaches people who see film in the same way. I also had a lot of fun delving into the complexity of Wes Anderson’s style. So, I hope anyone who’s interested in his work would find this piece enjoyable.
FM: What are your future plans?
MS: Since submitting this essay, I’ve completed my undergrad, and I’ve started MA studies at UBC, staying in the field of film. I’m excited to continue research within film-philosophy, which I’ve chosen as my area of specialization, and I’m beginning the daunting (but exciting) process of researching PhD programs.
Author Biography
Michael Stringer completed his BA at the University of British Columbia, majoring in Film Studies and Philosophy. Currently in UBC’s Cinema and Media Studies MA program, he’s working on SSHRC-funded research exploring film’s relation to philosophical thought experiments. Most recently, he presented research on BioShock at the FSAC Graduate Colloquium (2021).
