Markus, I'm not sure what (uncorrupted) school of linguistic logic you're
coming from with that 'enthusiast' derivation. But: in French, a 'videaste'
is definitely NOT a video lover or fan - that would be, naturally, a
videophile! - but a video maker/director, or even 'video artist'.
And the celebrated French TV series CINEASTES DE NOTRE TEMPS does NOT mean
'Cinephiles of Our Time' - thank the lord for that, because it would have
been a much less interesting program for the past 40 years!
Of course, this is just what David was saying: that these two different
meanings are operative in French. And the passage from French-into-American
of the word 'cineaste', rendering it interchangeable with cinephile is ...
just plain stupid! It is an error of bad-journalism history that needs to be
corrected, starting here and now! Especially as there is an operative
difference between a cineaste as one who does/makes films, and a cinephile
who (merely) watches films. Of course, a cinephile can become a cineaste,
and many cineastes are also cinephiles ... but I could not even write that
as a meaningful sentence of we collapse the true meanings of these two words
together!
However, quite apart from all this: I would still like to hear more of what
this cinephile/cineaste distinction means for Schleupmann, because it wasn't
too clear to me from the otherwise excellent book review.
takes-all-comers 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.
**
|