I once appreciated receiving weekly the digest of the society, but it
now appears that I am receiving a file every other day, rather than
digest of titles at the end of the week. If so, I would prefer to
receiving nothing.
Evan Cameron
Automatic digest processor wrote:
>
> There are 4 messages totalling 369 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Bereavement.
> 2. 8.18 Frigerio's Reply to Porton
> 3. PONETTE; UNDER THE SAND
> 4. Iconics Volume 7
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 13:12:50 EDT
> From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Bereavement.
>
> -------------------------------1085850770
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> A number of British films attempt to negotiate the apparent emotional
> reticence of the British by dealing with bereavement in a variety of interesting
> ways. Indeed, these films often use personal loss as a way of examining an
> evolving status quo. Among them are Millions like Us, Under the Skin and Secrets
> and Lies. So bereavement is often about much more than personal loss. Secrets
> and Lies appeared in 1996, the summer before Diana Spencer's sudden demise,
> and I think tapped into a popular desire for a more inclusive social
> contract, one answered in a landslide victory for Tony Blair in 1997. Even grieving
> has its political uses.
> Richard
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> -------------------------------1085850770
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=20=
> Arial"=20
> bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
> e_document=20
> face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
> <DIV>A number of British films attempt to negotiate the apparent emotional=20
> reticence of the British by dealing with bereavement in a variety of interes=
> ting=20
> ways. Indeed, these films often use personal loss as a way of examining an=20
> evolving status quo. Among them are Millions like Us, Under the Skin and Sec=
> rets=20
> and Lies. So bereavement is often about much more than personal loss. Secret=
> s=20
> and Lies appeared in 1996, the summer before Diana Spencer's sudden demise,=20=
> and=20
> I think tapped into a popular desire for a more inclusive social=20
> contract, one answered in a landslide victory for Tony Blair in 1997. E=
> ven=20
> grieving has its political uses.</DIV>
> <DIV>Richard </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> -------------------------------1085850770--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 21:09:41 +0100
> From: Film-Philosophy Editor <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: 8.18 Frigerio's Reply to Porton
>
> | | F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | =
> |
> | | | Journal : Salon : Portal | ||| | |
> | ISSN 1466-4615 | | |
> | || PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD | | | |
> | | http://www.film-philosophy.com | | | |
>
> | | | | vol. 8 no. 18, May 2004 | | | | | |
>
> Vittorio Frigerio
>
> Post-modern Bogeymen and the Alibi of 'Good Taste':
> A Reply to Porton
>
> Richard Porton
> 'Vagaries of Taste, or How 'Popular' is Popular Culture?: A Reply to Frigeri=
> o'
> _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 57, December 2003
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n57porton
>
> I have only recently discovered, with some surprise, that my review of=
> Porton's book _Film and the Anarchist Imagination_ [1] has elicited a=
> rather lengthy response. Its tone, as well as some of its content, has=
> convinced me of the utility of offering some brief clarifications.
>
> Porton complains that I do not specify clearly what I mean by 'popular=
> literature' and its relationship to 'high culture'. It seemed obvious to me=
> that a book review is not the place for an inevitably lengthy theoretical=
> discussion of that kind. My views on the matter can be found in the=
> articles 'La paralitterature et la question des genres' and 'Cui prodest?=
> Reflexions sur l'utilite et l'utilisation de la theorie des genres dans la=
> culture de masse'. [2] They are quite different from those Porton=
> arbitrarily attributes to me.
>
> Porton imaginatively 'suspects' that my position may be representative of a=
> supposedly excessive and unquestioning interest in popular culture on the=
> part of some trendy, post-modern, and politically correct academics who=
> 'fetishize' the popular. I feel I am not worthy to take upon myself the=
> weight of the sins of this entire category. Most of all, I entirely fail to=
> see where in my review Porton may have got this rather peculiar idea. There=
> is quite a difference between 'fetishization' and the desire to study a=
> cultural phenomenon objectively and independently from any prejudgment.=
> Certain critics dogmatically refuse to examine some aspects of cultural=
> production deemed by definition to be organically inferior. Porton seems to=
> want to adopt this strategy, but he makes the mistake of assuming that I am=
> a Mr Hyde to his Dr Jekyll.
>
> I do apologize for apparently mistakenly capitalizing the 'd' in the name of=
> Dwight Macdonald. However, I fail to see why my statement concerning him=
> ('This critic, perhaps best-known for his book _Against the American Grain_=
> . . . offered what is conceivably the most extreme denunciation of the=
> evils of 'masscult', and one of the most direct assimilations of 'high=
> brow' avant-garde artistic creation with 'high art'') would be 'unhelpful'.=
> It is certainly not 'uninformed'. Quite the contrary. It is simply a=
> statement of fact. For a critique of Macdonald's and the Frankfurt school's=
> position on popular literature, please see Umberto Eco's _Apocalittici e in=
> tegrati_.
>
> Nowhere do I suggest that 'popular and mass art [is] supposedly antithetical=
> to 'art films''. I do say, however, that they are two different things,=
> each worthy of being examined in its own right. This is the main=
> misunderstanding in Porton's reply. He assumes that I view these forms as=
> antithetical simply because I say that his analysis would be more complete=
> if it took more fully into consideration 'popular' forms, instead of almost=
> exclusively 'high art', and he instinctively understands this as an attempt=
> to replace the one with the other. I do not try to establish an inverted=
> hierarchical relationship between the two. Neither do I want to devalue=
> 'high art' as he tends to devalue 'popular' forms. I see them as complement=
> ary.
>
> As for Zola's and naturalism's influence on nineteenth-century French=
> anarchist aesthetics, I do contend that it is indeed extremely significant.=
> It is simply not possible to limit, as Porton does, Zola's relationship to=
> anarchism to his portrayal of Souvarine in _Germinal_. Indeed, many if not=
> most anarchist commentators did not see Souvarine as the 'vicious=
> personification of anarchism', as Porton asserts, and adopted the character=
> as a shining incarnation of absolute and intransigent revolt. Apart from=
> _Germinal-_, Zola's last two trilogies, _Les Trois villes_ and --_Les Trois=
> evangiles_, treat events and themes very close to anarchist concerns and=
> were the object of generally glowing reviews in the French anarchist press=
> of the period. Zola's involvement in the Dreyfus Affair attracted the=
> attention of the anarchists and led to a complete re-evaluation on their=
> part of his work and his figure. Articles on Zola, in practically all=
> anarchist publications of the late 19th and early 20th century, are almost=
> too numerous to mention. [3] More generally, naturalist aesthetics with a=
> 'popular' bent is very obvious in the numerous short stories published by=
> practically all anarchist papers. Prolific militant authors such as Brutus=
> Mercereau or Mauricius (two particularly representative names amongst many)=
> are clear examples of how a naturalist style can be combined with=
> melodramatic conventions to create a mythologized image of a certain class.=
> It is easy to fall back on the cliche of anarchists never agreeing upon=
> anything -- a cliche Porton rightly denounces but uses nonetheless. It=
> would certainly be excessive to state that 'there was some aesthetic=
> consensus among nineteenth-century anarchists', as Porton thinks I do. In=
> my review I stated that 'sentimental romance, swashbuckling adventure, and=
> melodrama form an important part of the fictional arsenal with which=
> nineteenth-century anarchists viewed themselves and their situation'. An=
> 'important part' of a 'fictional arsenal' that also contains other weapons.=
> The naturalist point of view is one of them, as well as one of the most=
> easily observed in late-nineteenth-century anarchist publications.
>
> Porton's appeal to 'faculty of taste' is perfectly legitimate, and his book=
> -- as I have stated before and would like to repeat (the jam now comes at=
> the end) -- is extremely interesting and worth reading. My point is that=
> the author's chosen 'faculty of taste' limits the scope of his=
> investigations and prevents him from identifying some characteristics of=
> anarchist aesthetics that, in my view, are nonetheless worth studying. In=
> my review I have attempted to point out what strikes me as an underlying=
> ideological assumption in Porton's book, that leads him to prefer works=
> somewhat related to 'high art' or 'avant-garde' (elastic as these concepts=
> may be) and to devalue works marked by a 'popular' tone or 'genre'=
> conventions. This does not constitute a 'hatchet job'. It constitutes the=
> identification of some preferences clearly expressed throughout his work.=
> Ideological assumptions are inevitable in all forms of criticism, no matter=
> how objective they claim to be, and Umberto Eco (in _Superuomo di massa_)=
> has pointed out how this is true even in that most scientific of all=
> schools of criticism: structuralism. Porton seems to have chosen to take=
> this statement of fact as a personal attack. It is unfortunate, and quite=
> typical of that ailment common to most academics, be they 'elitist' or=
> 'politically correct': thin skin. But his rebuttal fails to offer=
> convincing arguments against my reading, and his insistence on trying to=
> include me in an hypothetical cabal of post-modern academics endowed with=
> debatable taste, seems to me to do quite a bit to prove my point.
>
> Dalhousie University
> Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
>
> Notes
>
> 1. Vittorio Frigerio, 'Aesthetic Contradictions and Ideological=
> Representations: Anarchist Avant-Garde vs Swashbuckling Melodrama --=
> Porton's _Film and the Anarchist Imagination_', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7=
> no. 53, December 2003 <http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n53frigerio=
> >.
>
> 2. 'La paralitterature et la question des genres', in _Le Roman populaire en=
> question(s)_ (Presses Universitaires de Limoges, 1997), pp. 97-114); and=
> 'Cui prodest? Reflexions sur l'utilite et l'utilisation de la theorie des=
> genres dans la culture de masse', _Belphegor_, vol. 3 no. 1, December 2003 =
> <http://www.dal.ca/etc/belphegor/vol3_no1/articles/03_01_Friger_cuipro_fr.ht=
> ml>.
>
> 3. For a more detailed description of Zola's relationship to various=
> anarchist figures, see my upcoming 'La reception d'Emile Zola chez les=
> anarchistes', to be published by the Universite de Rennes II.
>
> Copyright =A9 Film-Philosophy 2004
>
> Vittorio Frigerio, 'Post-modern Bogeymen and the Alibi of 'Good Taste': A=
> Reply to Porton', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 8 no. 18, May 2004 <http://www.fi=
> lm-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n18frigerio>.
>
> | | | | | | |
>
> Send your thoughts on this text to: [log in to unmask]
>
> | | | | | | || | | | | | |
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 20:26:15 -0700
> From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: PONETTE; UNDER THE SAND
>
> On May 29, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
> >
> > Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 08:49:48 EDT
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: films dealing with bereavement?
> >
> > I'm surprised that no one has mentioned "Under the Sand"..
> > Fassbinder's
> > "Mother Kusters Goes to Heaven" comes to mind as well..
> Interesting that I mentioned PONETTE; you, UNDER THE SAND. These are
> two movies I like quite a bit and recommend to others, but can hardly
> bring myself to watch them again as they at times so sad. I'll have to
> focus on the cinematic talents instead of the characters!
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 12:18:43 -0400
> From: Aaron Gerow <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Iconics Volume 7
>
> The new issue of Iconics (Volume 7, 2004), the international edition of
> the journal of the Japan Society of Image Arts and Sciences, has just
> been published. Featured are invited articles by Francesco Casetti,
> Erkki Huhtamo, and Laurent Jullier, as well as articles from JASIAS
> members on Japanese cinema, Hitchcock, Weimar Film and English
> photography. The table of contents is as follows:
>
> Contents
>
> Film: The Gaze of its Age ....... Francesco Casetti 7
> Elements of Screenology: Toward an Archeology of the Screen
> ......... Erkki Huhtamo 31
> Pour une "histoire naturelle" des styles cinematographiques
> ......... Laurent Jullier 83
> Function and Form in the Early Period of the Nyusu eigakan
> (News Movie Theater)
> ...... Fujioka Atsuhiro, translated by Lori Hitchcock 113
> Journalistic Film--A Trend in Japanese Cinema in the 1920s and 1930s
> ......... Michael Fitzhenry 133
> Dual Persona: Onoe Matsunosuke as Japan's Early Cinema Star
> ......... Fujiki Hideaki 157
> Delivering Coal Mines: Advertising Photographic Postcards
> of the Coal Mining Industry in England
> .......... Inui Yukiko 181
> Kinokultur unde ide Entstehung der Filmkritik im Berlin
> der Weimarer Republik ....... Nozaki Yasuo 207
> Hitchcock's "Restricted Space"
> ....... Usui Michiko 235
> Contents of Back Issues of Iconics, Vols. 1-6 (1987-2002) 247
> Contents of Back Issues of Eizogaku, No. 68 (2002)- No. 71 (2003) 250
> Japan Society of Image Arts and Sciences 253
>
> Iconcis, which is indexed in Film Literature Index, can be ordered from
> the JASIAS office at a price of 2000 yen per issue. Payment by credit
> card is preferred (VISA, Master Card, DC), so inform the JASIAS office
> of the issues and number of copies desired and a credit card payment
> form will be sent. Libraries and institutions interested in _Iconics_
> and _Eizogaku_ (ISSN 0286-0279), the Japanese domestic edition of the
> journal of the JASIAS, can order through Japan Publications Trading
> (JPT).
>
> Contact:
> Japan Society of Image Arts and Sciences
> c/o College of Art, Nihon University, 2-42-1 Asahigaoka, Nerima-ku,
> Tokyo 176-8525, Japan
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Back issues are also available. A list of contents of previous issues
> can be viewed at: http://www.art.nihon-u.ac.jp/jasias/iconics-ie.html
>
> Aaron Gerow
> Member, Board of Directors
> JASIAS
>
> Assistant Professor
> Film Studies Program/East Asian Languages and Literatures
> Yale University
> 53 Wall Street, Room 316
> PO Box 208363
> New Haven, CT 06520-8363
> USA
> Phone: 1-203-432-7082
> Fax: 1-203-432-6764
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 29 May 2004 to 30 May 2004 (#2004-149)
> **********************************************************************
--
Dr. Evan Wm. Cameron Telephone: (416)736-5149, Ext. 88686
CFT 216 (Film): York University Fax: (416) 736-5710
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Canada M3J 1P3
*
*
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.
**
|
