I am curious too about how Schluepmann uses the distinction. When I read the
article, and being in Adrian's corner on this, I simply (or simplistically?)
took cineaste to mean filmmaker. So when I reread:
'Film refers back to writing, and the cinema to love as the incentive for
philosophy' (183).
and the line about how
'neglecting this feminine 'culture of love' since the 1960s has led to the
decline of the cineaste's cinema'
I thought the latter referred to the decline of a filmmakers cinema (with a
sense similar to that this expressions like a writers writer or a painters
painter). And the former meant to refer to this filmakers filmaking as
philosophical and feminist by virtue of its coming out of a culture of love.
But I wonder now if S. wasn't using a bit of wordplay and letting a bit of
the love meaning of cinephile insinuate itself into her use of cineaste.
Although I am not sure I understand S's thesis (and if I do I am not sure
that I agree with it and its rhetorical strategy) I do agree that the male
gaze tradition in film aesthetics and in the critique of cinephilia is a bit
on the uninteresting side.
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-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|