 |
 |
I don't know how apposite this is, since the topic seems a bit diffuse, but in his book The Total Filmmaker, Jerry Lewis confessed that he when he was in the cutting room working with an editor on one of his films he would like the emulsion when no one was looking. He said that he thought it meant that he got more of himself into the movie. I'm not making this up. Honest. George Robinson Alas, where is human nature so weak as in a bookstore? -Henry Ward Beecher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:35 PM Subject: Film as Fetish > 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 > >