To get "Rouge," go to www.rouge.com.au
Robert Koehler
----- Original Message -----
From: "Automatic digest processor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 6:20 AM
Subject: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 14 Nov 2003 to 15 Nov 2003 - Special issue
(#2003-356)
> There are 4 messages totalling 882 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics in this special issue:
>
> 1. Rouge (3)
> 2. 7.42 McKim on Kuhn
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> ***
>
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
>
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
[log in to unmask]
>
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>
> ***
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:34:04 -0800
> From: Robert Koehler <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Rouge
>
> It's terrific to read this early response to "Rouge," which came up
on-line
> just a couple of weeks ago. With the ambition to be a kind of "Granta" of
> online film journals, it also seems fair to already liken "Rouge" with the
> superb French journal, "Trafic," both for its seriousness and wide-ranging
> desire to capture all sorts of shards and fragments on the projected
image.
> Though it shouldn't, in my view, be seen as a substitute for that other
fine
> Australian online journal, "Senses of Cinema," it certainly stands apart
> from it as a journal of essay-art. And as the posters previously noted,
it's
> a huge leap over "Sight and Sound," which everyone I know believes needs a
> major overhaul.
> Robert Koehler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Automatic digest processor" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests"
<[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:00 AM
> Subject: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 13 Nov 2003 to 14 Nov 2003 (#2003-355)
>
>
> > There are 2 messages totalling 145 lines in this issue.
> >
> > Topics of the day:
> >
> > 1. Rouge (2)
> >
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > ***
> >
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> >
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are
> replying to.
> >
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:38:04 EST
> > From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Rouge
> >
> > --part1_1db.1454bafe.2ce545ac_boundary
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > I have to recommend Adrian Martin's new venture. Rouge is a rigorous and
> > provocative enterprise sorely needed in an age when that film-literary
> institution
> > Sight and Sound puts chainsaws and viscera on its front cover. Was I the
> only
> > subscriber taken aback by this singularly intemperate development?
> >
> > Rouge, I shall return...
> > Richard
> >
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > ***
> >
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> >
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are
> replying to.
> >
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > --part1_1db.1454bafe.2ce545ac_boundary
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
> FACE=
> > =3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">I have to recommend Adrian Martin's new venture.
> Rouge=
> > is a rigorous and provocative enterprise sorely needed in an age when
> that=20=
> > film-literary institution Sight and Sound puts chainsaws and viscera on
> its=20=
> > front cover. Was I the only subscriber taken aback by this singularly
> intemp=
> > erate development?<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Rouge, I shall return...<BR>
> > Richard </FONT></HTML>
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > ***
> >
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> >
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are
> replying to.
> >
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > If you have any questions about salon membership then email:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > ***
> >
> > --part1_1db.1454bafe.2ce545ac_boundary--
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:44:46 +1100
> > From: Ross Macleay <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Rouge
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C3AA93.F03622E0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > Have to agree with Richard on Rouge. Only read a couple of the essays so
=
> > far - Willeman on the zoom, Brenez and Martin on Brakhage. Both good. =
> > And the minimalist web design was a pleasure - lookwise and also for =
> > someone with a slow line.
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > ***
> >
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> >
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are
> replying to.
> >
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C3AA93.F03622E0
> > Content-Type: text/html;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> > <HTML><HEAD>
> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> > charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
> > <STYLE></STYLE>
> > </HEAD>
> > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Have to agree with Richard on Rouge. =
> > Only read a=20
> > couple of the essays so far - Willeman on the zoom, Brenez and Martin on
=
> >
> > Brakhage. Both good. And the minimalist web design was a pleasure -
=
> >
> > lookwise and also for someone with a slow line.</FONT></DIV>
> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> > <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ross</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > ***
> >
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> >
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are
> replying to.
> >
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > If you have any questions about salon membership then email:
> [log in to unmask]
> >
> > ***
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C3AA93.F03622E0--
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 13 Nov 2003 to 14 Nov 2003 (#2003-355)
> > **********************************************************************
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> ***
>
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
>
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
[log in to unmask]
>
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>
> ***
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:21:48 -0400
> From: Jane Bryce <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Rouge
>
> I'm really sorry, but I missed the original email with the web-site
address
> for Rouge...I tried looking for it on Google, but all I got was Moulin
Rouge
> and Baton Rouge. Would you mind sending it again? Thanks! Jane Bryce
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> ***
>
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
>
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
[log in to unmask]
>
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>
> ***
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:43:23 +1300
> From: duffinrk <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Rouge
>
> Rouge link
>
> http://www.rouge.com.au/
>
>
> > I'm really sorry, but I missed the original email with the web-site
> address
> > for Rouge...I tried looking for it on Google, but all I got was Moulin
> Rouge
> > and Baton Rouge. Would you mind sending it again? Thanks! Jane Bryce
>
> >
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> ***
>
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
>
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
[log in to unmask]
>
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>
> ***
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:10:01 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: 7.42 McKim on Kuhn
>
> | | F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
=
> |
> | | | Journal : Salon : Portal | ||| | |
> | ISSN 1466-4615 | | |
> | || PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD | | | |
> | | http://www.film-philosophy.com | | | |
>
> | | | | vol. 7 no. 42, November 2003 | | | | | |
>
>
>
> Kristi McKim
>
> Remembrance of Cinema Past:
> Reading Nostalgia and Writing Possibility in Annette Kuhn's _Dreaming of=
> Fred and Ginger_
>
>
> Annette Kuhn
> _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger: Cinema and Cultural Memory_
> New York: New York University Press, 2002
> ISBN 0-8147-4772-8
> xii + 273 pp.
>
> In the Reagan administration's playing of 'Edelweiss' to honor the
Austrian=
> Ambassador's arrival at the White House, we witness cinematic memory's=
> extreme overtaking of cultural memory. Intended as a fitting tribute and=
> touching homage to Austrian folk culture, the rousing musical rendition
was=
> hardly received as such. Written for and popularized by _The Sound of=
> Music_ (Robert Wise, 1965), 'Edelweiss' offered more nostalgic warmth
for=
> musical fans than for Austrians, who held no cultural referent for the
song=
> beyond its Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein origins. Clearly the=
> Reagan administration confused the intensity of the diegetic nostalgia=
> surrounding the song, for a memory that resonated beyond the film's=
> parameters. This incident embodies the confusion between cinematic
memory=
> and cultural memory, in its positing cinematic historicity as the
actual.=
> We cannot overestimate the degree to which cinema has affected our=
> negotiation of time. While this claim might seem broad reaching, within
the=
> context of Annette Kuhn's project, its truth finds generous illustration.
>
> _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger: Cinema and Cultural Memory_, [1] Annette=
> Kuhn's new cinematic ethnohistory, resides within this intersection of=
> cinema memory and cultural memory. Informed by numerous surveys,=
> questionnaires, and letters, Kuhn's project assembles a portrait of
1930s=
> British cinema culture that ultimately resonates, she claims, beyond
both=
> British cinema culture and past film audiences to 'ways of thinking
about=
> films, cinemas, and cinema cultures of all kinds, past and present' (3).=
> Respondents whose memories comprise this book's material were all born=
> prior to 1925; they were sought within specific areas (Glasgow, Greater=
> Manchester, East Anglia, and Harrow) and contacted through media appeal,=
> day centres, residential homes, and local organizations. Given the=
> parameters of and venue for this review, I am less inclined to evaluate
the=
> method of Kuhn's inquiry than I am to contemplate its conceptual tenets.=
> How does Kuhn mobilize memory as a term? How does the book conceive of=
> memory relative to cinematic aesthetics and ontology?
>
> In her work prior to this, _Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and
Imagination_,=
> Kuhn asks how film theory can,
>
> 'address itself to the emotions films evoke, to the ways in which these=
> emotions enter into people's fictions of the past . . . Any feeling=
> response to a film -- and indeed recollections of such a response even
more=
> so -- threatens our attempts to explain or intellectualise . . . because=
> each category (memory/feeling as against explanation/analysis) seems to=
> inhabit an altogether distinct register'. [2]
>
> She explains that, in cultural and film theory, experience often becomes=
> 'the trump card of authenticity, the last word of personal truth,=
> forestalling all further discussion, let alone analysis'. [3] _Dreaming
of=
> Fred and Ginger_ takes up materially this problem that she poses
abstractly=
> at the outset of _Family Secrets_. While _Family Secrets_ looks inward
at=
> her personal history as a kind of memory work, _Dreaming of Fred and=
> Ginger_ casts such temporal reflection outward upon a historical,
spatial,=
> and cultural moment. Instead of attempting to account impossibly for the=
> dialectic between art and its community, Kuhn pares her inquiry to a=
> manageable time period, locale, and subject that allows her to
appreciate=
> the intricacies of that dynamic more fully.
>
> _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ remains unique for its focus on cinema as
an=
> object and site of memory work. Discussions of cultural memory have=
> previously included consideration of ritual and art objects. Most
notably,=
> Walter Benjamin's 'Artwork' essay famously explores the potential of
such=
> artefacts and practices to behold authentic or sacred value. The=
> mechanically reproduced status of cinema, in addition to its early
locales,=
> at first undermined its worth as a legitimate focus of cultural inquiry.=
> While social histories of film have since been written, Kuhn's project
is=
> the first to explicitly undertake a discussion of memory work within the=
> cinema. In doing so, she elevates the cinema to a realm shared with
other=
> arts that have more endurably been regarded with a historical and
cultural=
> legitimacy (e.g. paintings, monuments, sites, etc.). _Dreaming of Fred
and=
> Ginger_ posits the cinematic space and experience as equivalent to
other,=
> more unquestionably valid, historical sites, events, and rituals.
>
> Within film studies, _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ fits into the
tradition=
> of reception studies most notably begun with Janet Staiger's 1992=
> _Interpreting Films: Studies in the Historical Reception of American=
> Cinema_. While Kuhn underscores her focus on the social audience as=
> differentiating her work from other texts in this tradition, I would=
> additionally highlight the term 'memory' as the most distinguishing=
> attribute of _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_. Other important texts --
such=
> as Jackie Stacey's _Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female
Spectatorship_=
> and Barbara Klinger's _Melodrama and Meaning: History, Culture, and the=
> Films of Douglas Sirk_ -- consider elements of social audience within
their=
> respective projects of female spectatorship/stardom and Sirk's
melodramas;=
> but they do not isolate memory as a primary term of their study.
>
> _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ acknowledges the temporal dimension of=
> reception studies, as it introduces the term memory to underscore how
any=
> study of audience (whether of 1930s or contemporary cinema) will be one
of=
> memory, since perception and reflection are never simultaneous. Any=
> recollection of reception necessarily privileges memory as its most=
> apparent, if latent, term. Kuhn's attention to memory, what ostensibly=
> figures as the vital gap between the moment of perception and of=
> articulating that perception, enriches the questions that can be asked
and=
> conclusions that can be reached in researching film's social audiences.=
> What this study misses, however, is a consideration of how her findings=
> reciprocally enrich and complicate memory. For all her carefully
documented=
> original research, she earns the authority to contribute more
conceptually=
> to ideas about cultural memory in general. She more apparently and
rather=
> insightfully situates her text within frameworks of reception studies;
her=
> casting such a contextual eye toward memory work would have been
helpful.=
> Though her study straddles the fields of cultural memory and film=
> reception, her leanings seem more toward the cinematic than the
cultural,=
> especially in her overt discussion of the film traditions within which
she=
> writes. Thus this project exists more as a presentation of original=
> research than it does as a theoretical exploration of the intersection
of=
> memory and cinema.
>
> The particularities of my criticism follow, though I want first to
establish=
> that I champion this study for its impeccable fulfilment of its
objectives.=
> Kuhn's lucidity and persistence of research and its presentation are
rather=
> stellar. The audience's seemingly uninhibited evocation of passion for
the=
> medium bespeaks a vibrant cinephilia that even seduces the reader to=
> reflect upon and appreciate the innumerable ways cinema has enriched and=
> continues to enrich our world. The energy and spirit is contagious; to=
> Kuhn's credit, she allows that love to propel the reader through the
book=
> without weighing the prose unmercilessly with heavy theory. The book
reads=
> quickly and with great fun. Yet to approach this book with the desire for
a=
> substantial consideration of film and culture's reciprocity, the=
> satisfaction level might be somewhat decreased. My criticism should be=
> contextualized, in that I was most optimistically seeking a rigorous and=
> provocative synthesis of what I wish I could read, if not write.
Implicit=
> in my review (and in any review) is a delineation of what I value in=
> current academic scholarship.
>
> At exactly the point that her reading or framing of responses begins to
take=
> on a theoretical bent, she seems to divert and undermine her own project
by=
> turning to a respondent's quote in the expense of saying something=
> worthwhile of her own. Instead of concluding her chapter on memory and=
> place with Walter Benjamin's 'A Berlin Chronicle', for instance, she
might=
> have taken some of his suppositions as starting points rather than
briefly=
> mentioned ends. Granted, her method allows the respondents to speak for=
> themselves instead of situating their comments within a pre-existing=
> framework; she admirably looks for the surprises and trends among
responses=
> instead of squeezing them into an overarching argument she hoped to
make.=
> Her words neither dominate nor override the respondents' words. On the=
> other hand, it still would have done no injustice to infer, from these=
> surprises and trends of the responses, a conclusion of her own. The book=
> feels all too governed by the spectators' memories, and it would have
done=
> well either to acknowledge such predominance or to balance it with
context=
> and readings of readings.
>
> The final page of _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ consists almost entirely
of=
> an assemblage of respondent quotations instead of a conclusion by Kuhn.=
> Here and elsewhere, she favors the spectators' words to a fault, such
that=
> her own argument seems merely supplementary and diluted relative to the=
> respondents' ideas. While we could read this as an ultimate scholarly=
> benevolence, resisting the commonplace tendency to exert erudite
authority=
> over the subjects of her study, I think Kuhn would do them more justice=
> were she to develop the ideas they introduce. It should be possible to
draw=
> from their memories without hierarchically downplaying their
significance;=
> such extrapolation wouldn't be speaking for or summarizing, rather it
would=
> be the performance of a scholarly respect for their contributions.
>
> While the words of the audience members seem to constitute their own=
> individual conclusions to their cinematic experiences, Kuhn's reluctance
to=
> privilege her own insights detracts from the project's ostensible
merits.=
> As she indicates through name-dropping or brief footnotes, she knows
where=
> and how particular theories would have strengthened her analysis, but
she=
> seems instead to presume the connection and to devote her textual time=
> toward the quantitative inclusion of more voices, more comments, and
less=
> of her own analysis. She positions herself more as a collector and=
> organizer of these responses than a scholar who cites them within her own
a=
> nalysis.
>
> Nowhere does her aspiration to offer salient conclusions yet inability to=
> articulate such arguments seem more apparent than in the text's
'Epilogue',=
> a glossary-like attempt to summarize her project's contributions to
broader=
> fields. In these three epilogue pages, Kuhn acknowledges that her book
'has=
> covered a great deal of ground on its journey around and through cinema
and=
> cultural memory, and in the course of the journey some new directions
have=
> been explored and some lessons about the conduct of inquiries into
popular=
> culture learned' (237). Kuhn lists nine headings (film studies,=
> spectatorship in cinema, the cinema audience, canonicity, cultural
memory,=
> memory work, childhood, ageing, and elders' stories), each of which are=
> followed by a short paragraph that explains the relative contributions
of=
> her project. Unfortunately, what could be a succinct and persuasive=
> reiterance of her argument instead exists as an empty, self-evident,=
> deferral of a conclusion.
>
> =46ar too many sentences hint at a 'deeper understanding' of these=
> categories, the 'interesting', 'informative', 'revealing',
'instructive',=
> 'entertaining', 'surprising', and 'thought-provoking' memory-stories of
her=
> book (239). Such a string of adjectives importantly does nothing to=
> indicate why these stories and her project actually merit such esteem.
She=
> addresses the 'value of memory work in itself' (238), yet resists=
> articulating this value in this space where it would be convenient and=
> compelling to do so. She claims that 'examining the detail and the=
> discursive registers of memory stories of the 1930s cinemagoers throws
into=
> relief the distinctive qualities of cinema memory' (238), yet refrains
from=
> overtly committing to just what these 'distinctive qualities' are within=
> the cultural studies context she conjures. Kuhn too frequently refers to=
> the way her study 'enhances, deepens, and modifies understandings',
'offers=
> a productive way', 'permits a deeper understanding', and can 'throw
light=
> on the cultural as well as the psychical processes involved in ageing'=
> (238-9), all without clarifying just what these deeper understandings
and=
> insights are.
>
> Throughout the preceding text, she similarly hints at such evasion; in
the=
> chapter 'All My Life, and Beyond', she writes the following sentence
that=
> seems either to entrust us with more wholly understanding her argument
or=
> to avoid delineating her argument altogether. She writes: 'These=
> observations are telling not only because they shed light on the
workings=
> of cinema memory but also because they flesh out discussions in previous=
> chapters' (206). The phrases 'shed light' and 'flesh out' are neither=
> 'telling' nor enlightening in the furthered ideas they sufficiently
cloak.
>
> To its credit, _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ shines as a successful and=
> clear presentation of original research into 1930s cinema-going, as=
> remembered decades later. Kuhn illustriously organizes her findings and=
> perceptively notes trends, surprises, and exceptions; this book would be=
> one well-suited for the philosopher or theorist (or Kuhn, in a later
work;=
> as I've indicated in this review, she seems well poised to offer such=
> extension of her findings, but just turns from it) to take up in a more=
> advanced situation of spectatorship, memory, time, and aesthetics.
>
> Such development might consider the following: what connections might be=
> made between the duration and time she addresses and the temporal=
> discrepancy implicit in the respondents' memories, the disparate times
of=
> watching and recalling that become narratively elided in the telling?
How=
> does cinematic time relate to memories of cinema? How do Pierre Nora's=
> famous lieux du memoire relate to the movie theater or the films=
> themselves? What do Benedict Anderson's imagined communities mean for
the=
> cinema audience, or Maurice Halbwach's collective memory? How does
Alasdair=
> MacIntyre's concept of narrative selfhood relate to these particular=
> cinematic recollections? The cinema, and the research Kuhn impressively=
> presents, becomes a terrifically suited site for this unique elision of=
> time, place, and subjectivity; moreover, the cinema becomes an aesthetic=
> form catalyzed by modern technological developments. How does this art
form=
> and its reception work within and create our modern notions of fantasy,=
> memory, hope, and community? More concretely, how does cinema affect our=
> experience of time, both the reconciliation and opposition of the moment=
> and its duration? Granted, Kuhn is by no means responsible for these=
> questions; most definitely, she is not responsible for their answers.
But=
> in reading her text, I couldn't help but acknowledge my own scholarly=
> fantasy that she undertake the pressing questions that lurk behind and=
> within her own readings of spectators' cinematic memories.
>
> An example of how she nearly arrives at such considerations occurs at the=
> end of the 'All My Life, and Beyond' chapter, wherein she explores the
case=
> of _Maytime_ (Robert Z. Leonard, 1937) and concludes that its reception=
> maps the 'death of the star . . . onto the deaths of the film's central=
> characters' and produces 'love . . . as triumphing over death' (212).
She=
> nicely compares the 'enduring fan's devotion to a reluctance to grow old=
> and a nostalgia to remain young. Implicit in these sentences is an=
> attachment to the materiality of the film for its recurrent, repetitive=
> (and many would claim, hysterical and traumatic) cycling of its
narrative;=
> the characters and story remain unchanged and unaged, while the film
stock=
> bears the time that otherwise would be made visible through the body.
Kuhn=
> might have written several more paragraphs (or chapters) extending the
idea=
> upon which she momentarily touches here. The cinephilia that pervades
her=
> respondents' memories seems inextricably caught up in a cinematic=
> consolation of temporal and romantic anxieties beyond the diegesis, and
the=
> degree to which such reflections complicate and lend clarity to such=
> intersection would be worth considering.
>
> Another example of her proximity yet resistance to contextualizing=
> theoretically her original research involves the consideration of time
and=
> magic in the cinema. In her final chapter, 'Oh! Dreamland!', Kuhn writes=
> that:
>
> 'In the magical ambience of the cinema auditorium, time as well as space=
> take on new dimensions, and time spent in the pictures is remembered as=
> qualitatively different from ordinary time. It is more elastic, more=
> flexible, more giving. While time-memories are rarely explicitly=
> articulated in these terms, repeated allusions in informants' accounts to
a=
> particular way of organizing cinema time are revealing in this respect'=
> (224).
>
> Kuhn's distinction between 'ordinary time' and 'cinema time' introduces
the=
> simultaneous temporal dimensions at stake in her project, to which I
would=
> further add the specificity of the moment of watching, the duration
between=
> the watching and the recollection, and the moment of recollection (which=
> necessarily involves an ordering of the multiple times that have
preceded=
> that moment of remembrance).
>
> Kuhn addresses the continuous programming that lent itself 'to begin=
> watching a feature film part way through the story' (226). Such
programming=
> resulted in a modification of 'narrative time, narrative trajectory, and=
> narrative closure' and a misalignment of 'narrative time and viewing
time'=
> (226). However, the stakes of this modification and asynchronicity are=
> never elaborated; moreover, Kuhn neglects to acknowledge that story and=
> film duration are hardly ever aligned (Classical Hollywood cinema=
> particularly strove to collapse time within its narratives, with 'real=
> time' characterizing the art cinema). Kuhn considers that the continuous=
> programming 'lends remembered cinema time a quality of expansiveness and=
> circularity' (226), though immediately upon introducing this fine
direction=
> her study might take, she turns to the words of her respondents and
hereby=
> dodges yet another chance to explore worthwhile and expansive dimensions
of=
> the complicated temporality implicit in her study.
>
> A respondent exclaims that the cinema 'was all new and wonderful, just as=
> the internet and computing are today' (221). Kuhn frames this comment
with=
> the following: 'Letter-writer Sheila Black explains what it was that
made=
> cinema so exciting for her, offering a telling comparison with
present-day=
> attractions' (221). At a point when she might draw important conclusions=
> between the cinema and modern technology (or at least be invited -- by
the=
> respondent's own words -- to consider the contemporary implications and=
> value of her study), she turns from explicit mention of such
technological=
> developments and dilutes them in the phrase 'present-day attractions'.
In=
> moments such as this, she misses her chance to develop her project into
a=
> contemplation of the new and magical relative to emerging technology;
she=
> neglects the opportunity to explore the ways this study resonates beyond=
> 1930s cinema. Of course, it is not for me to declare the directions she=
> ought to have taken her study, and then to critique her work on the
basis=
> of such exclusion. I want to reiterate that this book works
extraordinarily=
> well on its own terms; it successfully fulfils the objectives it sets
for=
> itself. But given my own objective of assessing the book's value to film=
> and philosophy, I need remark upon the theoretical gaps that remain open=
> and unfilled in its pages.
>
> Her framing of audience response seems to beg theoretical development=
> without, as I have indicated, following through upon such concepts.
Another=
> example includes her claim that 'imitation memories are centrally about=
> explorations of masculinity, femininity, or sexuality' (181). Here might
be=
> another place for her to substantiate if not sophisticate her argument
by=
> incorporating Judith Butler's notion of gender as performance, which=
> undeniably beholds vital implications for the idea of imitation. Even
Homi=
> Bhaba's mimicry would be helpful to include. One page later, it is clear=
> that she's essentially describing the myth of entertainment so
eloquently=
> elaborated by Jane Feuer; she could have saved numerous paragraphs if
only=
> she could have cited Feuer and moved forward from her ideas. The=
> spontaneity, integration, and audience Kuhn describes in 'An Invitation
to=
> Dance' reflect almost identically the myths Feuer made apparent years
ago.=
> Vital research on the musical (Richard Dyer, Jane Feuer), memory,
cinema,=
> and community would have together enriched Kuhn's reading of these=
> respondents' comments. The absence of her own close readings becomes
most=
> apparent when she quotes at length Rick Altman's analysis of _Top Hat_=
> (Mark Sandrich, 1935); as this example demonstrates, her most
substantial=
> analysis consists of quotes from other theorists. I wish that that she
had=
> applied her critical and reflective voice from _Family Secrets_ more=
> substantially in this book; even addressing the stakes of privileging=
> nostalgia as a focus of cultural inquiry could have strengthened this
proje=
> ct.
>
> 'Oh! Dreamland!' constitutes the chapter that best approximates such=
> reflection; though it includes weak places as noted above, this chapter=
> also gets closest to approximating the level of analysis I would have
liked=
> to read throughout the text. In her consideration of American
sociologist=
> E. Wight Bakke's 1930s study of London unemployed men's relation to
cinema,=
> Kuhn explains that his responses 'are uncoloured by hindsight or popular=
> memory as replies to questions about cinemagoing in the 1930s might be=
> today' (216). Clearly, this 'hindsight' and 'popular memory' of 'today'=
> constitutes the subject of _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_, and she values=
> the nearly seventy-year temporal disparity between moments of viewing
and=
> recollecting for what it offers cultural memory. It is in this chapter
that=
> Kuhn most explicitly speaks the importance of her study:
>
> 'the power and value of these memories as evidence lies less in what they=
> reveal about the individuals articulating them -- it is neither helpful
nor=
> proper in an inquiry of this kind to attempt to psychoanalyze
informants --=
> than in the insights they yield about the collective imagination of a=
> generation' (219).
>
> It is also in this chapter that she more astutely and critically reads
her=
> respondents' words:
>
> 'At one extreme, some accounts deal with matters which may seem
relatively=
> superficial and which informants rarely seem to have difficulty putting=
> into words. At the other extreme, some testimonies betray an intensity
of=
> engagement which touches on the transcendent; and where words fail here,=
> the feeling may find expression in circumlocutions as well as in=
> hesitations, silences and other nonverbal modes of expression' (220).
>
> Within additional passages that, for sake of space, I will refrain from=
> quoting, this chapter concludes the book with the very substance I wish
had=
> been present from the outset. As my criticisms have indicated, the book=
> succeeds at what it aspires to do; but I simply would have preferred
those=
> aspirations to bespeak a greater awareness of their existence within=
> critical and cultural theory.
>
>
> Epilogue
>
> Since my greatest appreciation of Kuhn's project lies beyond realms=
> philosophical, I include this epilogue so as more fairly to indicate the=
> parameters of my esteem. In evaluating Kuhn's book critically, what I=
> cannot account for is the sheer pleasure of reading the respondents'=
> stories. Gaining momentum in the fifth chapter, the book celebrates=
> cinema's contributions to these people's lives more than it perhaps
wants=
> to wax philosophical or even poetic in analyzing them. When you finish
the=
> book, you might feel as if you've just enjoyed a reunion of your most=
> articulate and enthusiastic elderly relatives (if you should be so
lucky;=
> and, if not, then imagine a group of eager eighty year olds clamoring
for=
> interviewer attention and smilingly swooning over the cinema), most of
whom=
> have stories you want to hear. I'm left with some kind of reverence for
the=
> cinema that these stories behold. At once a respect for the respondents'=
> memories, this reverence also feels like a renewed belief in cinema
magic,=
> for what happens in the theater as much as what the films themselves=
> constitute. The respondents' fervor for their memories almost makes it
seem=
> that human happiness was veritably unshareable before the cinema. The
fact=
> that these stories would, for even a moment, convey such an idea
bespeaks=
> the heightened suspension of criticism necessary to appreciating this
book=
> in its fullest.
>
> _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ validates and celebrates cinephilia by=
> emphasizing how we remember through an art (and how art constructs those=
> memories both through reflection and through intensifying our temporal=
> experience). Kuhn's project nobly illustrates how the cinema imbricates
its=
> mechanical self inextricably in the most personal and effusive of human=
> sentiment. The innumerable and superlative idealizations of cinema,
stars,=
> and movie houses can be met with both exhaustion and appreciation:=
> exhaustion, or a kind of depleted suspension of disbelief (if everything=
> inspires awe, then the threshold to read it is proportionally altered);
and=
> amused appreciation, a fondness that the reflector might be any loved
one,=
> that we are enamoured -- not patronizingly, but admiringly -- to read
the=
> optimism with which cinema is beheld.
>
> More than that, we might even feel our own kind of gratification, the=
> heightened faith in what cinema can mean and the ways in which it=
> explicitly contributes to people's, to our, lives. Depending on what we=
> need and want this work to be, we can either feel a charmed affection or
a=
> critical disappointment. In truth, my first time reading, I felt=
> short-changed; but upon my second reading, once I knew what the project
did=
> and didn't include, I was much more readily seduced by the heartfelt=
> nostalgia intrinsic to the respondents' memories. Once I established for=
> myself that this text simply didn't aspire toward theorizing cinema and=
> time and sentiment, I felt in a better position to appreciate the
bemused=
> affections these people felt not only toward their (often shared) pasts
but=
> also for the cinema's place in that past.
>
> In writing this review, I realize my own optimism in wanting this book to=
> chronicle hope and faith as rendered cinematically, mediated
mechanically,=
> and expressed nostalgically. More specifically, I'd like to read any
book=
> about which I could make such claims for its temporal and aesthetic=
> consideration of faith and hope. To claim that _Dreaming of Fred and
Ginger=
> _falls short for its neglecting such aspiration would hardly be a fair=
> criticism. What this book implicitly emphasizes through privileging
memory,=
> however, is the mutual consideration of nostalgia and temporality
relative=
> to the moment of sensation and of recalling the sensation.
>
> Kuhn's project presents the construction of a prior notion of hope and=
> possibility in proportion to a present loss or dissatisfaction; largely,=
> these respondents bespeak a desire to believe in some kind of former=
> happiness. Regardless of present satisfaction, they relish the
opportunity=
> to wax nostalgic for what their lives once seemed to promise; the memory
of=
> this promise relates inextricably to the present need to remember this=
> promise. Whatever motivates such rosy coloration of the past varies for=
> each person; and even at the level of the personal, we could not imagine=
> that we might know, individually, such motivation. What this project=
> valuably affirms is the tenuous and contingent negotiation of selfhood
and=
> relationships, within time, relative to the cinema.
>
> By writing their pasts as they do, these respondents retrospectively
build=
> possibility as they correlate their temporally bound lives with the=
> repetitious, cyclical nature of cinematic art. This project writes the=
> cinema, a temporally contingent aesthetic, within the span of an
individual=
> life (and, ostensibly, within collective memory). That cinema becomes=
> inscribed within the time of a life (and that the time of a life can be=
> written relative to cinema) bespeaks a particular contingency that
stands=
> as an exemplar for how our lived experience might be expressed,
heightened,=
> and knowable within modernity. _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ postulates=
> cinephilia in time, a delineation of audience memory as nostalgically=
> existing in time and for the sake of sentimental intensity.
>
> I suppose that we should not be surprised that her project ultimately=
> becomes so very seductive. In reading Kuhn's organization of such=
> impassioned testimony, we can be moved firstly for the appreciation of=
> their appreciation; and secondly for the reflection that it ultimately=
> catalyzes in our own relationship to cinema and time. Doesn't it make us=
> want to tell our memories that coalesce in the cinema? Even here, how=
> tempted I could be to share my own earliest memory, which happens to=
> include my family and cinema. That Kuhn makes such a telling appealing=
> perhaps highlights the achievement of her study. In _Family Secrets_,
Kuhn=
> explains that memory work engages both the psychic and the social, and=
> 'bridges the divide between inner and outer world'; she hopes that the
case=
> studies therein can be read,
>
> 'for the stories they tell about a particular life, stories which will=
> perhaps speak with a peculiar urgency to readers in whom they elicit=
> recognition of a shared history; as a contribution towards understanding=
> how memory works culturally; for what they offer more generally to
theories=
> of culture and methods of cultural analysis; and perhaps most important
of=
> all, as a recipe, a toolkit, even an inspiration, for the reader's own=
> memory work' (10).
>
> While I wish that, in _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_, she had explored at=
> greater length the ways in which her research contributed to a cultural=
> understanding of memory, the very fact of her project's catalyzing
memory=
> work -- of the respondents, and potentially my, our, own -- speaks to
the=
> legitimacy (or indulgence) she offers such endeavors.
>
> The fairest assessment I can make of _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_ is that
I=
> was invested and intrigued enough to want to experience her learned and=
> wise synthesis of what she, in fact, concludes about cinema memory,=
> cultural memory, and social audiences. This scholarly desire exists as=
> testament to Kuhn's enriching material and its lucid organization.
Perhaps=
> my greatest compliment and criticism is to wish that I could have read
more=
> =2E
>
> Emory University
> Atlanta, Georgia, USA
>
>
> Notes
>
> 1. Originally published in the United Kingdom as _An Everyday Magic:
Cinema=
> and Cultural Memory_.
>
> 2. Kuhn, _Family Secrets_, p. 33.
>
> 3. Ibid.
>
>
> Bibliography
>
> Klinger, Barbara, _Melodrama and Meaning: History, Culture, and the Films
of=
> Douglas Sirk_ (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,
1994=
> )
>
> Kuhn, Annette, _An Everyday Magic: Cinema and Cultural Memory_ (London:
I.=
> B. Tauris, 2002).
> --- _Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and Imagination_ (London: Verso,
2002).
>
> Stacey, Jackie, _Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship_=
> (London and New York: Routledge, 1994).
>
> Staiger, Janet, _Interpreting Films: Studies in the Historical Reception
of=
> American Cinema_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).
>
>
> Copyright =A9 Film-Philosophy 2003
>
>
> Kristi McKim, 'Remembrance of Cinema Past: Reading Nostalgia and Writing=
> Possibility in Annette Kuhn's _Dreaming of Fred and Ginger_',=
> _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 42, November 2003
<http://www.film-philosophy=
> =2Ecom/vol7-2003/n42mckim>.
>
>
> | | | | | | |
>
>
> Send your thoughts on this text to: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> | | | | | | || | | | | | |
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> ***
>
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
>
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to:
[log in to unmask]
>
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>
> ***
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 14 Nov 2003 to 15 Nov 2003 - Special issue
(#2003-356)
>
****************************************************************************
**********
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
***
|
