I would like to ask Paul Malone a question about his fascinating and very
informative book review. This is the key passage for me:
"Against the philosopher's view of the cinema -- that is, the standpoint of=
the 'cinephile' -- as a 'tool for self-development' ('Selbstbearbeitung')=
to revive his lost faculties of perception and of love, is opposed the
view=
of the 'cineaste', who takes the love present in the cinema for granted,=
and delegates to it everything which he cannot identify: '. . . all
content=
that refers to the reality outside the cinema, all sentimentality and all=
unmasculine bodily arousal. Thus is the masculine subject yet again=
produced in the cinema' "
I am wondering: does Schluepmann really mean 'cinephile' and 'cineaste' here
in their everyday senses of (respectively) 'film lover' and 'film maker' ?
This standard distinction - which is often confused, for instance in an
American magazine called CINEASTE! - does not really seem to map onto the
philosophical terms described.
I look forward to illumination on this key point! Thanks again for the
review-essay.
Adrian
*
*
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]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|