scholarly journals Researching Sex and the Cinema in the #MeToo Age

Film Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Mattias Frey ◽  
Sara Janssen

This introduction to the Film Studies special issue on Sex and the Cinema considers the special place of sex as an object of inquiry in film studies. Providing an overview of three major topic approaches and methodologies – (1) representation, spectatorship and identity politics; (2) the increasing scrutiny of pornography; and (3) new cinema history/media industries studies – this piece argues that the parameters of and changes to the research of sex, broadly defined, in film studies reflect the development of the field and discipline since the 1970s, including the increased focus on putatively ‘low’ cultural forms, on areas of film culture beyond representation and on methods beyond textual/formal analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Moro ◽  
Samita Nandy ◽  
Kiera Obbard ◽  
Andrew Zolides

Using celebrity narratives as a starting point, this Special Issue explores the social significance of storytelling for social change. It builds on the 8th Centre for Media and Celebrity Studies conference, which brought together scholars and media practitioners to explore how narratives inspired by the lives of celebrities, public intellectuals, critics and activists offer useful rhetorical tools to better understand dominant ideologies. This editorial further problematizes what it means to be a popular ‘storyteller’ using the critical lens of celebrity activism and life-writing. Throughout the issue, contributors analyse the politics of representation at play within a wide range of glamourous narratives, including documentaries, memoirs, TED talks, stand-up performances and award acceptance speeches in Hollywood and beyond. The studies show how we can strategically use aesthetic communication to shape identity politics in public personas and bring urgent social change in an image-driven celebrity culture.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Jordan Schonig

The Introduction examines why “movement” is often invoked as a term in film criticism and film theory but is rarely analyzed as an aspect of film form. The reason for this is twofold. First, because film theory has largely examined movement only as a defining property of the cinematic medium, movement is rarely singled out in film criticism. Second, because film theory has inherited the philosophical intuition that form is primarily spatial rather than temporal, formal analysis in film studies tends to break up the temporal flow of film into static units, such as in shot breakdowns and frame analyses. In film studies, then, “form” and “movement” are conceptually incompatible. As a means of thinking motion and form together, the Introduction proposes the concept of “motion forms,” generic structures, patterns, or shapes of motion. The Introduction then explores the philosophical roots of the motion form in phenomenology and Gestalt psychology, and explains how such a way of thinking about cinematic motion differs from other phenomenological approaches in film studies. Finally, the introduction outlines the six chapters of the book, each of which investigates a particular motion form that emerges throughout the history of cinema.


2020 ◽  
pp. 89-138
Author(s):  
Kamilla Elliott

Chapter 3 discusses how, just as new copyright laws were legitimizing intermedial adaptations, modernist theories drastically diminished the theoretical fortunes of adaptation with their rejection of the past and celebration of the new. Modernism shattered adaptation into allusions: studying allusions as adaptations would indubitably help to restore the theoretical fortunes of adaptation under modernism. Modernism’s hostility to mass culture was often aimed at adaptation: even theorists valorizing other popular cultural forms opposed it. Requiring film to dissociate from other art forms in order to emerge as an art in its own right, rather than as a craft or a recording device for other arts, medium specificity theory undermined adaptation in literature-and-film studies. Affecting all kinds of adaptation, the formalist turn diminished the theoretical fortunes of adaptation by rejecting the cultural theories that had valorized adaptation in prior centuries. Joined to medium specificity theories and structuralist semiotics, intermedial adaptation became not only aesthetically undesirable but also theoretically impossible under theories that content cannot separate from form to appear in another medium. With the advent of the theoretical turn in the humanities, adaptation became a battleground upon which theoretical wars were fought, battles that, paradoxically, foregrounded it. By the 1990s, adaptation was becoming an established, if divided, diasporic field, engaging a panoply of theories.


2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Stacey ◽  
Lucy Suchman

Written as the introduction to a special issue of Body & Society on the topic of animation and automation, this article considers the interrelation of those two terms through readings of relevant work in film studies and science and technology studies (STS), inflected through recent scholarship on the body. Drawing upon historical and contemporary examples, we trace how movement is taken as a sign of life, while living bodies are translated through the mechanisms of artifice. Whereas film studies has drawn upon work ranging from production history to semiotics and psychoanalysis to conceptualize the ways in which the appearance of life on the cinema screen materializes subjectivities beyond it, STS has developed a corpus of theoretical and empirical scholarship that works to refigure material-semiotic entanglements of subjects and objects. In approaching animation and automation through insights developed within these two fields we hope to bring them into closer dialogue with each other and with studies of the body, given the convergence of their shared concerns with affective materializations of life. More specifically, an interest in the moving capacities of animation, and in what gets rendered invisible in discourses of automation, is central to debates regarding the interdependencies of bodies and machines. Animation is always in the end a relational effect, it seems, while automation implies the continuing presence of hidden labour and care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 121-132
Author(s):  
Magdalena Saryusz-Wolska

Post-war Film Audience in Berlin. A Contribution to the New Cinema HistoryThe article aims to present the advantages of the new cinema history as a research tool in the field of cultural participation. It focuses on early post-war cinema audience in Berlin, their motivations, practices and habits. Watching films is treated as an exemplary social, economic and political phenomenon that influences all kinds of using and producing popular culture. The author stresses that films are usually made for their audiences. Hence, film studies should pay more attention to the cinemagoers as well as to their parallel activities, such as reading film magazines, observing film posters, or watching film advertisements. Moreover, historical audience studies are a necessary step while analyzing the changing modes of cultural participations. Information on historical practices is especially useful, at a comparative level, in order to support theses on the specificity of contemporary cultural activities.


Author(s):  
Charles Burnetts

Chapter Four provides a wider theoretical basis for the ‘sophistication’ and self-consciousness that characterises post-classical or postmodern forms of sentimentality in US film culture, with particular attention paid to notions of ‘excess’ and distanciation. It accounts in particular for the influence of key modernists like Adorno, Benjamin and Brecht on taste categories that persist in contemporary film studies, with particular reference to the ‘ideological stoicism’ that is alleged to predominate in critical film culture. The discussion will provide context for a discussion of the ‘affective’ turn in film theory, around which the contributions of Gilles Deleuze and Stanley Cavell loom large in their centralisation of a film-as-thought paradigm.


Author(s):  
Randall Halle

This chapter illustrates how the discussion of cinematic apparatus was international and in many instances foundational for the establishment of film studies as a discipline. Apparatus offered a means to consider precisely the study of film as more than formal analysis of the projected image; it sought to arrive at a more comprehensive discussion of cinema. The production of the image was understood not simply as an industrial tale, but as a matter of signification, social relations, modes of production, methods of projection, space of reception, and subjective effects on spectators. In the 1960s, the discourse on the apparatus was connected to the quest for revolutionary forms. By the 1980s, the debates regarding apparatus theory became bogged down by considerations of ideology and an overwhelming focus on psychoanalytic models.


Author(s):  
Tami Williams

This concluding chapter explains how Dulac's cinema, in its aesthetic and sociopolitical complexity, is only beginning to be recognized and understood. Dulac studies until recent years had been limited to a few films, and predominantly to a feminist theoretical approach that launched a recovery of this great filmmaker in the Anglophone context. In contrast, in the French context, Dulac's work has long been subject to a depoliticized formalism, where identity politics and gender considerations have only slowly been making their way into film studies. Drawing on various archival materials (manuscript, printed, filmic) and secondary sources, and considering the environment's dynamic sociopolitical context, the chapter further reveals Dulac's films and her filmic ontology of a “pure cinema,” a cinema of suggestion and potentiality.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Racquel Gates

There has been a shift away from formal and textual analysis in the field of film and media studies. These methodologies are seen as passé, “old school,” or even overly simplistic (and no doubt some of this work may warrant these critiques). Yet, I suspect that, as with the celebration of style in Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016), here, too, other politics are at play. In some ways, to reject formal analysis is to subconsciously reject the earlier era of film studies that treated the study of black film (and eventually television) as marginal or inconsequential. In other ways, this move away from formal analysis is also an acknowledgement of the incredibly rich and multifaceted terrain that black representations cover: the critical study of industrial practices, labor, and global strategies—to list some of the most popular topics in the field right now—are all essential to any understanding of the complicated subject of black film and media. Questions of style, though, cannot be separated from questions of politics. Aesthetics bear the indelible imprint of racial ideologies. This is tricky territory, then, and requires scholars to tread carefully. The celebration of certain “beautiful” aesthetics can serve to reinforce an established taste politics that has traditionally dictated an aesthetic marginalization and degradation for people of color throughout the history of the medium. I intend these questions as provocations rather than condemnations. I am not suggesting that high-quality images are simply indicators of whiteness or that low-quality ones are inherently more authentic for representing blackness. On the contrary, I am fascinated by the power that style holds, especially as it pertains to the black image, and how the implementation of that style can form a powerful critique of the film and television industries' longtime racism. At the same time, I want a more rigorous, thoughtful, critical interrogation of how these images come to be, what they signify, and how they train viewers to read race in ways that extend beyond narrative. In proposing an emphasis on aesthetic and formal analysis, I am suggesting, not a “return” to traditional film studies approaches, but instead, a study of black images that was never “there” in the first place.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document