 |
 |
Hi Mimi, Like Sean Saraka, I am puzzled as to what you mean by "the film in itself". I'm assuming you don't mean the film-as-object (this raises all sorts of strange possibilities!). If you mean, as I think you do, the image as fetish, there is an abundance of literature around this as, given your awareness of Mulvey, you must be aware. Lots of work from the 70s around Josef von Sternberg dwelt in detail on his imaging of Dietrich. More recently, Wong Kar-Wai's films have given rise to this sort of speculation. Difficult to advise without a more rigorous definition of fetish. Off the top of my head, didn't Mulvey publish a collection called Fetishism and Curiosity? Potentially interesting project. Richard