Russell,
two points: as far as I can see, this image-driven phenomenon has been referred to as the 'new cinema of attractions.' Of course, Bordwell/Thompson argue against this, namely that Hollywood is still producing 'classical' narratives, thereby virtually abolishing film history: plus ça change, plus c'est le même chose. Elsewhere, Bordwell has termed globalized cinema's style 'intensified continuity' (the same, but more so). Buy maybe Bordwell & Co. just don't want to surrender their conception of classicism?
Secondly, has this 'manic image' (in allusion to Deleuze), if we want to stick to the anti-Bordwellian notion of contemporary cinema, been properly theorized yet in cinema studies/film-philosophy?
Thanks for your ideas,
Henry
> Henry
> Two things would identify this genre in my opinion.
> The first would be the complete overwhelming of form over content. The
> second would be a film packaged for a contemporary viewer who finds no
> disquiet with films like these. Genre may be a little misleading but I think
> you can put lots of films in this field. I would start with Casino Royale
> and end with Vantage Point. But why stop at political thrillers? I would
> also add The Hurt Locker and Avatar, Titanic and King Kong (Jackson). If we
> seek the obverse of this genre we go back to films like Wages of Fear where
> content dominates or Being John Malkovich where form supplements content.
>
> Russell
>
--
Film-Philosophy
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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
--
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
Contact: [log in to unmask]
--
|