The illustration chamber is an lively dispositif. It needs to be completed to describe it and monitor its operation.
– Jean-François Lyotard (1993: 3, translated)
Graphics, Stacks and Materiality
It's all the time fascinating and teachable to return to the purpose of history when a change in cultural circumstances rose to the horizon. From the viewpoint of the international cinema tradition and its current way of life, such progress grew in the early 1990s. Thomas Elsaesser, in a document entitled "The place of research and film", "about the speed, the obvious anarchy, and the power of explosion with which they are"; he mainly considered "VCR" [and] ", where there was a mere abstract node at that time in the" virtual area "that the information technology produced (1993: 44). During this time, Elsaesser was atypical to refuse to produce a standard, pessimistic reflex that touched upon the highly tempted and completely overrated movie death; he speaks instead of "oxygen" (1993: 41) about new alternatives. Nevertheless, one specific research question crystallizes in its account (anticipating the influential positions of Manovich  and Cubitt ): the character of the photographic picture in an more and more postal world.[A] insofar as cellulose was its solely basis, the image retained the physicality that fraud digital media absolutely emphasizes from a non-academic perspective. For example, in entrance of a computer no one is talking about footage: simply graphics and animation. […] When analogue video reaches us, and just lately in a digitalized type that is detached to its materials expression, it is troublesome and subsequently as soon as extra needed to take into consideration the image. (Elsaesser 1993: 46-7)
In the early 1990s, television packages (as in the superior work of cultural research of the 1980s) paved the best way for critics and theorists about potential destiny. picture in the current and future audiovisual panorama. Television shaped an analogous horizon for audiences and commentators – all of which less of us take a look at the same issues in the same box – in a method that feels inconceivable, even engaging from at present's far more fragmented and tactical view of at this time's YouTube. , Fb and iPhone culture. During this time, the cable or pay-TV and the new or worsened formats it got here up with seemed to be at the forefront of mass tradition, which might still carry that description – earlier than the digital fragmentation termites worked properly in text codecs and in groups of viewers. What might have affected commentators from the time when now you can take a look at us on the head, afterwards, as the newest configuration of a technical inhabitants culture. Nevertheless, we still have to return to this crucial second of writing in the early 1990s and see if there actually is some sort of instinct and formatting in the ideas.
For my part, such a personality shouldn’t be solely found in Elsaesser's far-reaching meditation on his career, but in addition within the exceptional Margaret Morse textual content, "Ontology of Daily Disorders: Freeway, Mall and Television", which appeared for the first time within the 1990's Logics of Tv. The work has a broad, cultural goal: to understand the methods through which "television is similar or related to other, certain modes of transport and exchange in everyday life" (Morse 1990: 193). Notably retrospectively, I find Morse & # 39; s evaluation of "building and operation principles" (1990: 193) and particularly "middle of segmentation" (1990: 200), at work in the final huge bastion of television cable between cable and digital: news magazine program  The uplifting discourse sometimes consists of "stacks" of recursive ranges, which are usually fairly totally different in look and "aroma". can also be marked by numerous area and time deletions from the viewer and has totally different contents. The shift of the discursive degree can also be the transition of the ontological degree, that’s, the truth. In this case, the TV formats create particular ways to deal with and organize "stacks" of worlds as a hierarchy of reality and relationships for the viewer. (Morse 1990: 206)
Subsequent, we take a look at Morse's monumental awareness of the analysis of latest fangled tv codecs. In the mean time, I simply need to equate her together with her sensible image as an audio-visual middle as a result of Elsaesser's 1993 music tells of a postcard that shortly turns into graphics and animation:
Now it's not so much a reality effect, but a stake materiality impact, and with it, movie concept, system You might want to rethink the issues of ideology and subjectivity. (Elsaesser 1993: 47)
Not the impact of reality however the materiality impact? There isn’t a tradition of a photographic index that’s classically associated with André Bazin, but with the idea of film, which is principally an artifice discovering that’s aimed toward attracting spectators, similar to, for example, Daniel Frampton's 2006 Library of Filmosophy? It appears to me that the thought is so radical that as we speak's concept brings with it refined back surveillance, like Laura Mulvey's current work. For him, the digital era – the true potential of which is to come up or retouch absolutely nothing – paradoxically ”permits cinephil meditation on the relationship between the movie and reality […] to re-discover the sweetness that Bazin has over a flower or snowflake. indicator ”(Mulvey 2009: 193). This isn’t simply nostalgia for the "lost movie"; as a result of, as Elsaesser said within the conclusion of his 1993 paragraph, the "relationship between the existence of objects and bodies in time and space, in this time and in this space" (Elsaesser 1993: 47) must even be considered a key a part of any aesthetic, political or moral dedication to figuring out what he (among many others) has referred to as materials culture.
Nevertheless, it is exactly materiality – the methods during which it’s defined and used in relation to the film – which is in the present day and within the swing. Wouldn’t it undoubtedly (at the least at first) be relevant to the truth or the truth of the body (and every little thing we might embrace in the complicated framing course of) saved within the body of the movie? In response, I choose to contradict myself with Nicole Brenez's next barely gnomic statement, which was also written in 1993, when she invited the Artwork Press website (après Godard) to "Bazinia's effort, maintained by a kind of non-Bazinian analysis that no longer takes a real second character or a movie. in this avant-garde, Brenez estimates that, in fact, "we’re nonetheless just a little behind Bazin" (Brenez 1997). the idea should all the time begin with burnt floor politics – which is a lot the faulty nature of the cyber concept in the digital age – as an alternative of flushing on the ground degree the glimpses of previous models which were forgotten, or might never have been developed sooner or later. and in addition then, from the perspective of the current, we will hear and perceive their echoes.
Morse's 1990's is one such example. On this text, Morse attempted to define (then) a new media format for a tv that "has two or more objects and levels of attention and co-operation of two or more different, even contradictory, metapsychological effects" (Morse 1990: 193). He distinguishes this "shared faith" and "sinking into another world", which he describes as "theater, film and novel equipment" (Morse 1990: 193). His strategy could be very helpful to us right now, as it combines the economic and financial elements (and constraints) of material tradition case research with the function of the 1970's movie concept, however now a fairly forgotten function of Jean-Louis Baudry (1978) and Christian Metz of Metaphorology (1982). ). Additionally it is unpleasantly prophetic when it confiscates another 1970s buzzword that has returned to us in a resurrected, just lately tense method: system or, like an invitation, for reasons that may quickly grow to be obvious, dispositif. Keep in mind, in 1993, Elsaesser additionally referred to as for a "reassessment of the equipment […]" (Elsaesser 1993: 47). The time and alternative for this idea is now at hand
Two photographs from the beginning of 2010:
1. Damaging evaluation Abbas Kiarostamin Shirin (2008) Cahiers du cinéma in Patrice Blouin – a delicate critic who has been attentive because the 1990s not solely to Cahiers but in addition to Artwork Press's new media, post-TV codecs similar to video games. Blouin recollects the best way Kiarostami began within the 2000s, in the course of the ten (2002), and the "bold gesture" to connect cameras to the left and proper of the automotive, and simply let his forged members drive away by improvising their dialog precisely "to eliminate mise en scène" (Blouin 2010 : 74). And what replaces the normal mise en scène technique – staging, dressing and setting lights, digital camera choreography, guiding and evading the actors – right here? The word: dispositif, fastened and systematic assembly or association of parts (in this case, organs, cameras, viewing areas, shifting object, passing cityscape) by which Blouin describes "automatic recording" (Blouin 2010: 74).
2. As well as to the world's greatest film listings for movie magazines, new sorting has begun to develop: it is aimed toward "highlights of moving images" and is predicated not solely on theater or pageant exhibits, but in addition on Web platforms. That is what I’ve participated in one such survey: maintained by the completely happy discovery Pomplamoose Group Site (2010), which Nataly Dawn and Jack Conte will current the Video Music (as they’re in the time period) for every new music recordings. The Pomplamoose provides a confusingly light-hearted flip-flop to the darkish vision of Jean-Luc Godard, who had begun thirty-five years earlier at Numéro Deux (1975) – through which many residents of a block of flats have working class residents. simply ever in a stunning video frame framed on domestic TVs positioned in the darkness of the 35mm image. For Daybreak and Conte & # 39; s "total environment" condominium has grow to be a DIY house studio (we not often see anything outdoors it), and this studio appears more like a youngsters's playground than a prison or hell. Their VideoSongs comply with two precise rules of self-determined development: “What you see is what you hear (not the synchronization of lips to instruments or sound). 2. If you hear it, you'll see at some point (no hidden voices) ”(TheBestArts 2009). This dispositif – precisely what it is – creates humorous ghosts: every time Nataly crosses by singing (as she typically does), we move instantly to multiple cut up screens – naturally, to protect the integrity of the game rules. ( "I have a rule dogma-type guy," notes Conte Dagissa 2009.) Fastened digital camcorders, drives set, restrictions on the situation and activities: who might have guessed Numéro deuxin, throughout Chantal Aker Manin critical Jeanne-day Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) and even the Battle of Kiarostam Ten that dispositif could possibly be this fun?
The enjoyable point out brings us to the unlikely or sudden source of the present-day audiovisual tendencies: droll, typically deliberately naive or primitive French filmmaker and critic because the 1950s, Luc Moullet. In an article revealed in 2007 entitled "Les dispositifs du cinéma Contemporain", he describes the methods and techniques of many films which are sure in a method or one other to Pomplamo's VideoSongs or Kiarostam's latest movies Certified Copy (2010). Disositif film – Moullet's own idiomatic sound – feels virtually a translation, in this context, reminiscent of contrast, is both a personality (such because the written perceptions of Georges Perec or other members of the Oulipo group) [see Mathews 2003]. the whole novel with a predefined restriction that does not use a selected letter of the letter), and a machine. Above all, it’s a conceptual film (conceptual artwork), a disposition (because the phrase is usually translated), which often indicates its structure or system originally, within the opening, even in its title, after which
When it was held by Peter Greenaway's films or avant-garde examples as eccentric aberration, comparable to Hollis Frampton's Hapax Legomena (1971-2), the procedures at the moment are in the midst of a world art movie. Among the progressive Asian movies of the final 20 years, one solely has to take a look at the work of Hong Sang-soon or Hou Hsiao (or in Japanese Europe) Kira Muratova's fantastic features. Numbered elements (and even titles: 5, ten, three, three stories); intensive restrictions on digital camera angle and perspective; complete narrative buildings based mostly on a proper concept and its potential lengthy delayed cost (akin to the ultimate confrontation of two close-ups that ended with Masahiro Kobayash's The Rebirth  Akerman's play); films built from elements and layers and elements (pop instance Todd Haynes I am not there  with many Bob Dylans)…
This motion (if it may be referred to as) will find a temporary summary of Kiarostam's video books in a big exhibition Correspondences: Erice-Kiarostami (2006-7): an extended collection of digital photographs, landscape and city views, photographed via a rain-splashed automotive window; everyone is mirrored with a bit of little bit of digital zoom (but with a rewrite that exhibits or reveals one thing that isn’t instantly seen or obvious); and the ultimate picture as the ultimate statement just in order that the windscreen wipers remove the rain from falling and canceling dispositif. (Kiarostami, as we’ve seen, fell in love with the dispositifs of automobiles, similar to a system of cuts within the frames, entrances, exits, dramaturgy of the scene and the 2 cameras of the front seats of ten cameras.) The final characters, but in its full opening, we hear this imaginary movie solely on the display once we take a look at the faces of many viewers – all ladies, all Truly recognized Iranian Actors – who take a look at it and react in a different way. Regardless of – this is truly part of the wild allure of the work – that ladies do not likely sit in one cinema (every set up separately at Kiarostam's house), and that their reactions do not start by watching or watching. even listening to the movie-Shirin movie in-film
Cinematic dispositif is usually created (Perec-style) exclusions – refusing to play this or that convention that the filmmaker has corrupted or ossified, and hence, for believers or masochists, many trendy leaders immediately recognizable fashion features: direct compliance with audio recordings in Straub and Huillet, efficiency de-dramatization Pedro Costa, lack of typical soundtrack factors in Tsai Ming-liang (where music solely breaks out during exaggerated track and dance collection), Sohrab Shahid-Saless resolutely fastened digital camera in Akerman, shot / reverse shot and the ensuing entrance finish… In Moullet's vein we will additionally mention predictable disposifs that run out of steam and fall down long before their finishing point (I'm not there), or anti-contraptions like Mascul in-fémin (1965), the everlasting, cheek anarchist Godard, who declares his text “fifteen accurate facts” – after which continues to deliberately mixing the numbering, overlook the thought and alter the construction midway. (Numbers, including historical past dates, are all the time engaging, and God Godard all the time histoire (s) du cinéma [1988-98] and its many film / video-off-shots.)
However we should instantly demand that dispositif is just not a mechanical or rigid formal system: it is greater than an aesthetic information that’s as different, shocking, or inventive as the settings of the filmmaker (who puts it on). And it will not be tied in a decent or exclusive approach to the auteur: some leaders change their dispositifs slightly or radically from work to work. Disositifs are often delicate and unambiguous; and this strategy allows us to transcend the paralytic, short-term names that conventional criticism typically returns if you take a look at a post-1960s modernist movie, marking such movies as either brechtish, minimalist, collage or embroidered with a parametric narrative (an idea that has been critically useful, but not often extends to the textual content logic of an extended or deep complicated film.)
a completely heterogeneous band
The time period dispositif opens in many places in theoretical English writing. Its enter to movie research is coming concurrently from a minimum of 5 sources – typically overlapping, typically confusing. However all these sources assist feed the richness of the concept: the dispositif principle itself is a methodological dispositif! It is helpful to understand that, for instance, in urban planning and in numerous social sciences, dispositif is a time period used to describe such everyday assemblies within the everyday world within the operation and upkeep of visitors lights or in the group of rituals similar to Funeral (see Kessler 2006a) – and thus the entire social. stream".
Listed here are the primary strains of dispositif query that nowadays deliver movie concept. First, Jean-Louis Baudry (1978), in the elementary text of film principle, where the time period has a richer, extra numerous which means, returns (eg Kessler 2006b) to the which means of the time period. partly because of the linguistic translation drawback we see. Secondly, and maybe mostly, the term Michel Foucault & # 39; s origin (most clearly in the 1977 interview) is politically-cultural, Gilles Deleuze (1992) took a specific path. and expanded Giorgio Agambe in his brief 2009 e-book What is a tool? Thirdly, and a minimum of I mention, is a short-term term referring to Vilém Flusser, which appears to mix (with out reference and probably purely instinctively) both Baudry and Foucault, especially in the one giant essay written by this keen social commentator (1979). ”(See Flusser 2006 and Martin 2009a). Fourth, there’s the enthusiastic and widespread expression of Jean-François Lyotard in describing all types of phenomena during his theoretical high period of the "libido economy" (1993). Finally, the term used in art criticism, especially installation know-how, has been used by Anne-Marie Duguet (1988) after pioneering work, and this in turn has brought concerning the criticism of the current movie / artwork trade
Dispositif or gadget? When film students take the used abstract accounts of "device theory" (which is usually thrown out, in the same breath, as some obsolete remnants of a horrible, "big theory" moment on the continent), they typically study (badly) to mix two fairly totally different, although necessarily overlapping, phrases for Baudry. Within the 1970s essays (English translations have been collected in Cha 1981), both of which have been translated into units. However, Baudry introduced the appareil de base, the essential gear of the movie, consisting of digital camera, projector, celluloid, photographic registration tools and machines. Disositif, however, is an instantaneous and necessarily extra social machine for Baudry, which is an meeting of parts or an arrangement that adds a film expertise: a body in a chair, a darkish room, a light-weight projector hits the display. Baudry introduced a motion between two words on this method: when the essential cinematic system already incorporates a prediction, dispositif increases its viewer and all this means (Baudry 1978). The era of Baudry's texts has turn into far more necessary: in order to reply slightly to the class of an abstract preferrred or platonic perspective, successive commentators have steadily increased all of the economic, architectural, and social circumstances in and across the cinema (single- or extra commonly now in multiplex) – for example, near a shopping mall or included in it. that Flusser described him in the 1979 paragraph. Nevertheless, when Flusser awakens social definitions of darkish nightmares, Jean-François Lyotard (1993) emphasizes the energetic, actually libidinal dynamics of any dispositif from the human physique itself to the "cameras" of theater, movie and television itself. 19659002] At a broader degree of political analysis, Baudry's formative position in movie concept begins to minimize with Foucault and Agamben. Foucault did not get terribly distant from the specific or superior concept of dispositif thought earlier than his dying in 1984, though a lot of his work on reflection may be seen as its improvement in different ranks and other models. In an extended, already-mentioned interview in 1977, he proposed his plan for future analysis – particularly in relation to his predicted, finally unfinished collection on the history of sexuality – which is defined as analysis:
What I am making an attempt to do is firstly a completely heterogeneous entity consisting of discourses, establishments, architectonic varieties, regulatory selections, legal guidelines, administrative measures, scientific opinions, philosophical, ethical, and charitable proposals. stated. Such are the elements of the gadget. The gadget itself is a system of relationships that may be shaped between these parts. Secondly, what I attempt to determine on this system is the character of the connection between these heterogeneous parts. (195)
Agamben extra firmly generalizes the term than Foucault – at the similar time sharpening Foucault's correction in the ways and means of subjectivity, in addition to what might be overcome or opposed to such subjective results:
I actually name [in Italian, dispositivo] who has some capability to seize, direct, determine, intercept, model, manage, or secure gestures, behaviors, opinions, or discourses of dwelling beings. Thus, not solely in prisons, madhousas, panoptics, faculties, confessions, factories, disciplines, legal measures, and so on. (whose connection to energy is clear in a way), but in addition a pen, writing, literature, philosophy, agriculture, cigarettes, navigation, computer systems, Cellular Phones and – Why Not – The Language That Perhaps the Oldest Gadget – the place hundreds of years ago the primate inadvertently left itself to catch up, in all probability without realizing the results he was approaching. (2009: 14)
The impression of artwork criticism on film evaluation (as used by Bellour or Duguet ) is essential because it helps to negotiate a fertile car between the key social bands created by Foucault and Agamben and people particular audiovisual works. , which additionally internally type a system of relationships between heterogeneous parts. (What else is strictly what Raúl Ruiz means when he refers to the work of mise en scène on his work – or relatively, many Mises en scène packages which are potential in any state of affairs of staging or storytelling, see Ruiz 1999. ) Erika Balsom, for example, confuses Baudry with Foucault so as to detect a "new and different concept of medium specificity" created by "defining economic and ideological determination of space" within the 16 millimeters Tacita Dean. the gallery works in parallel with the material properties of an analogue movie ”(2009: 416).
When Morse mentions "theater, film and novel equipment" (1990: 193) or Bellour (2000a) invokes as we speak's "dispositif disputes", they differ in all these dispositif definitions. These days, the cinematic dispositif is not in summary or preferrred phrases written by Baudry – it isn’t a considerably cumulative and approximate "cinema machine" factor before the form and content material of any specific movie. Nevertheless, we must not overlook the essential parts of film production and consumption, which have been emphasized by Baudry (akin to Flusser) and their elementary metapsychological effects. These parts and results are by no means immutable and not all determinative, however they supply what we name (after Kant and Eisenstein) the Grundproblet, which each movie must work on, whether or not it is chosen or conscious of it. Thus, each instrument (film, novel, theater, artwork gallery / museum) has a broad presentation due to a mix of aesthetic qualities and social historical circumstances, and each work can create its own rules of play, its own dispositif
The time period Foucault, which does not cope with aesthetic works options, is definitely suggestive and useful. According to him, each dispositif has each a practical overestimation (every factor of the heterogeneous group "hits resonance or contradiction" [Foucault 1980: 195] with others, main to steady and dynamic change) and strategic improvement – the need to determine, manipulate and then tackle new, sudden, sudden results and results which might be primarily experimental, "see what happens" concerning the operation of any dispositif. This is, as Lyotard points out, the constructive facet of the dispositif
Gaze Spatialising the Gaze
Let's take a look at this step more slowly and progressively this time, with Patrice Blouin making a modern dispositif of the basic mise en scène in his Shirin pan. It isn’t about saying that in this progress, mise en scène is lifeless, both within the type of a movie or a film disaster. Traditionally, great basic films are still made at the moment (whether or not Clint Eastwood or Lone Scherfig), and the mise en scène critique, as we now have recognized and beloved it, isn’t far from the historic or present subject of its research area (see Gibbs 2006, McElhaney 2009, Perkins 2009) . The query is moderately whether there was a sure development within the movie (and in audiovisual manufacturing generally), not solely in current occasions, an invention that has been marginalized or literally noticed within the protocols of mise en scène and its inevitable, built-in events and exclusions? The development that isn’t the other of the mise en scène & # 39; or its prohibition, but its particular, pointed mutation? (Actually, many auteur signatures – examples of Bresson, Ozuin, Angelopoulos, just some classical artwork movies – resemble the construction of dispositif, although autism, which has a romantic commitment to the assumption of unlimited creativity, has lengthy fought (19659002) Or – probably the most radical idea – makes The time period "dispositif" or something that’s and has all the time been a natural mise en scène – perhaps even higher or larger than the overall formal category? mise-en-scène (as the literature thrives, she copies it) is a basic strategy that matches "both the age of the movie and the vision, a certain kind of belief in the story and the shot" however it’s finally simply one of the means of organizing movies (Bellour 2003: 29) And if the dispositif concept should draw our consideration to anything, it is a approach of organizing film material: an example Christa Blümlinger defines dispositif's media-specific search for "space or symbolic disposition" (Blumlinger 2010), where the look refers to all types of seems to be, tendencies and views (fictitious, technological, actor) – and this is not just our eyes but in addition our ears. Naturally, in the art gallery, where the administrators including Akerman and Pedro Costa have actually unloaded a few of their films and placed them on multiple screens of an architectural association – the thought of a dispositif set up (and this may be another attainable English translation time period) is sufficiently apparent. Mutta voimmeko myös suunnitella konseptin ja kaiken, mitä se herättää takaisin elokuvan yhden näytön välineeseen, joka valaisee tätä mediaa uudella tavalla?
Disositif-käsitteen mekaanisen tai systemaattisen puolen keskeinen painopiste on muistuttaa me – 1970-luvun käsite, joka on liian nopeasti unohtanut tai tukahdutettu sen jälkeen – että dispositif on heterogeeninen, että se on todella hyvin erilaisten aineiden bittiä ja palasia, jotka tuodaan usein haihtuvaan työsuhteeseen. For the good German critic Frieda Grafe (who died in 2002), all cinema—regardless of how seemingly impartial or classical—came down to one thing resembling this: “Only the calculated mingling of formative elements originating in various media, each with its own relative autonomy, generates the tension that gives the film life” (Grafe 1996: 56). And she or he was, on this occasion, speaking not of any conceptual artwork set up however Joseph Mankiewicz’s The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947)!
A televisual detour is again useful right here. In her 1990 textual content, Margaret Morse offered what was to be a prophetic vision of the audiovisual workings of our digital screen-media age:
The illustration of the copresence of multiple worlds in several modes on the television display is achieved by way of division of the visible area into areas or by way of the illustration of stacked places which could be tumbled or squeezed and which, in visible phrases, advance towards and retreat from the visible subject of the viewer. Discursive planes are differentiated from embedded object-worlds by way of axes: the vector of eyelines and actions, and modifications of scale along the z-axis of spatial depth indicate a proxemic logic of the shared area of conversation with the viewer. In distinction, embedded stories are oriented round x- and y-axes, truly or nearly by the use of the sector/reverse area of filmic, continuity modifying. The first logic of alternation in tv segments is then not that of suture, as in filmic fictions, but quite that of communication with a spectator in numerous degrees of ‘nearness.’ (Morse: 1990: 206-7)
Communication with a spectator, as theorised by Morse, is certainly an important facet of the materiality of any audiovisual medium—a reality that is turning into increasingly evident to us right now. At a conference on modern film and criticism at Studying University (UK) in September 2008, the sensible cinema aesthetician Gilberto Perez, writer of The Materials Ghost: Films and Their Medium (1998), started his keynote handle—which coated questions of point-of-view and direct handle in films from Buster Keaton to Andrei Tarkovsky—with a consideration of Barack Obama’s spectacular stadium speech within the US (August 2008). Perez, evaluating Obama’s mode of handle with that of the standard television host or news reader, distinguished two glances or gazes within the Senator’s clearly very rehearsed performance: the look left and right to the stadium crowd, and the look straight forward into the digital camera, thus addressed to the tv audience. Obama’s achievement, in Perez’s estimation, was to fluidly draw collectively these two audiences—reside and mediated—into the one mass.
Jacques Aumont’s vital 2006 ebook Le cinéma et la mise en scène begins, in an identical vein, with a dialogue of a key second in the modern media politics of France: the farewell speech, on nationwide television, of outgoing President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in Might 1981 (Aumont 2006: 6-11). (One of the best and longest YouTube snippet of this media occasion, labeled “Giscard French President Goodbye France”, is taken from a Raymond Depardon documentary.) It was an odd spectacle: from a mid-shot right into a close-up of Giscard, before an indiscernible backdrop—and then all of the sudden a pull back, means back, by the digital camera, to present a slightly unglamorous desk (complete with papers and flowers), an obvious set, and then Giscard awkwardly standing up, turning his again to the viewing audience, and marching off frame-left and off-screen—leaving the image bare and empty (like in an Ounces film) as the French national anthem performed out to completion. It was a historic TV occasion that (as Aumont remarks) gave rise to quite a few, common, colliding interpretations: was it designed as an expression of Giscard’s bitterness; was it an try by somebody behind the scene to subvert the politician and his picture; or was it a monumental instance of general ineptness and lack of planning?
Each Perez and Aumont current their televisual case studies as situations of mise en scène evaluation—the type of mise en scène which is (as Aumont puts it) partout, in all places. A mise en scène of political speech—of the powerful addressing (unifying or dividing) the plenty by way of the spectacle, based mostly on the centuries-old mannequin of the public rally, with its numerous modes of magnification (auditory, visual, architectural) of a central, authoritative figure; and a kind of mise en scène widespread to televisual formats, from news broadcasts to selection exhibits. Species of mise en scène, in other words, that got here into existence both before and after the arrival of cinema, and now work alongside it, feeding into it. Certainly, for Aumont, the Giscard broadcast is an exemplary occasion of at the least two mises en scène: the politician’s theatrical mise en scène overturned (wittingly or not) by the regard of the digital camera, by its motion in and out, by the commentative or interrogative mise en scène which this viewpoint introduces into the uncooked occasion that it renders.
This can be a powerful displacement of conventional mise en scène evaluation within the research of cinema—whether or not practiced by the French critics of Cahiers du cinéma and Positif within the 1950s, Andrew Sarris and his auteurist acolytes in America, or the British faculty that was first associated with Movie in the ‘60s and is today enjoying a widespread, international revival, especially in relation to the magisterial work of V.F. Perkins. Traditional mise en scène analysis –precisely the kind that most university students are introduced to as a basic or essential tool of how to analyse a film—rests (as Aumont’s 2006 e-book makes clear) on a simple however highly effective assumption: that cinema is, above all, an art, an artwork type slightly than (for instance) a social discourse or a mass media type. No affordable individual as we speak can doubt that cinema is indeed an artwork; but the actual question is: is it only an artwork? And what would this question mean for its evaluation and theorisation? Nevertheless, even when cinema studies moves on (or up) to combine historic, political and philosophical elements in its synoptic view of the medium, it tends to depart this space of close analysis (variously referred to as formal analysis, fashion evaluation, detailed evaluation or textual evaluation) relatively intact and unquestioned on the art-medium degree, as an aesthetic building block in our apprehension of cinema. It turns into a protocol, unquestioned and untheorised in any new or vital approach.
Turn the Page
One of the few texts to deal with the conceptualisation of mise en scène from other perspectives is Aumont’s 2000 anthology, La mise en scène. Among the virtues of this ebook is its recourse to lesser recognized histories of the dialogue of film fashion, histories that differ significantly from the extra rehearsed, enshrined and canonised histories emanating from France, USA or Britain. As an alternative, we’re introduced to (for instance) the work of Belgians Dirk Lauwaert and Frank Kessler; Shigehiko Hasumi and Tadao Sato in Japan; Sergei Eisenstein’s ignored theorisation of mise en scène in the Russian context of the ‘30s and ‘40s; temporary however suggestive reflections by Pier Paolo Pasolini and Umberto Eco in Italy in the course of the late ‘60s; or the Filmkritik trajectory related to Frieda Grafe and filmmakers including Harun Farocki and Hartmut Bitomsky.
Traditional mise en scène analysis is what I have elsewhere (Martin 1992 & 2009b) recognized as expressive in its orientation. When the poststructuralist revolution of the ‘70s and beyond contested expressive theories, a new era of critic-theorists tended to junk expressive tendencies in toto, changing them with different fashions: an extreme model of film type, for instance, derived from trendy psychoanalysis and inspired by the unruly dynamism of psychic drives and processes, controlled or mastered by no artist (nevertheless great). It isn’t now a matter of turning back the clock to what film research as soon as was earlier than the semiotic revolution. It’s clear that the panoply of terms, features and figures that derive from expressive aesthetics—artist, paintings, craft, masterpiece, inventive achievement—have by no means really left us, never will, and by no means ought to. There’s nonetheless—as Elsaesser as soon as remarked—something powerful left over, some aesthetic drive, some “pleasure that seems to have no substitute in the sobered-up deconstructions of the authorless voice of ideology” (1981: 11). It’s our obligation to discover an account that is worthy of the complexity of this inventive experience—an account which, on the similar time, encompasses the manifold modernities and post-modernities of cinema that the idea of the ‘70s (and beyond) primed us to grasp. This is the place the notion of dispositif will help, and problem, us in making an attempt to convey these mental traditions together.
What is the central drawback with traditional mise en scène analytics, of the type bequeathed to us by the well-known essential actions of Paris, London and New York, the type that when upon a time illuminated for us so powerfully the works of a Minnelli or a Mizoguchi, a Visconti or a Sternberg? This drawback has two features. Because the Swiss critic-theorist François Albera has expressed it, classical mise en scène, at the peak of the rhetoric related to it, is meant to “capture the invisible soul of things and manifest them in a form” (2000: 228). To put this in slightly extra mundane terms, the classical gesture of cinematic creation – what is literally involved within the act of a director shifting round actors and a digital camera and arranging the scenic parts on set or on location—is construed as certainly one of “organising, in some way, what is unorganised” (2000: 228), of giving type to what is initially formless, chaotic, dispersed. The director pulls collectively all these parts and, beyond a mere act of ordering or orchestration, transforms them via the regard of the digital camera and the best way it defines the sector earlier than it. Hence, for example, Australian critic Barrett Hodsdon’s notion (1992) of the epiphanic transformative second in mise en scène (most often carried by a digital camera movement or a physical gesture), which is so crucial to the cult of cinephilia.
The thought of making type from the formless is, properly speaking, a totally Romantic concept, and it corresponds, at this elementary degree, to the philosophy and beliefs of grand Romanticism. And as far as movie criticism might have moved, in lots of its postures and assumptions, from the trimmings of the Romantic code, it nonetheless remains beholden to and entrenched inside it. On this sense, the legacy of Alexandre Astruc’s famous notion of the caméra-stylo corresponds not solely to the motion of the Romantic author’s pen, but in addition the Romantic on the spot of the painter’s impressed brushstroke. Yet, as Bellour (2000b: 119) has pointed out, there was all the time a stark cleavage between two concepts or tendencies in Astruc’s considering, as distinct from his filmic apply. Where the caméra-stylo was an idea projected into the longer term, mise en scène was for him a totally classical, even retro ideally suited: that was the only type of cinema (typically tailored from literature) he himself made. It is more on the aspect of the conceptual dispositif than the freewheeling caméra-stylo that the ex-cinema of the longer term—i.e., the cinema of now—is to be found.
The critique of this primary facet of the normal concept of mise en scène thus opens one door: the challenge to consider what pre-exists the moment of capturing—whether we think of this alongside the documentary class of the pro-filmic, or some other distinct stage of the artifice of filmmaking—as itself already replete with all types of type (and which means). One results of this line of thought has been the brand new idea of a social mise en scène that has been pursued, variously, by Albera (2000), Kessler (2000), Perkins (in his pathbreaking 2005 essay “Where is the World? The Horizon of Events in Movie Fiction”), Jean-Louis Comolli (2004), Deborah Thomas (2005), and myself (2011). I can’t say rather more about it right here however, suffice to say, a social mise en scène is absolutely in play in the examples of mediatised public politics deployed by Perez and Aumont: the mass stadium rally and the ‘intimate’ Presidential farewell alike are already stagings as complicated (if not fairly as clever) as those by John Ford or Stanley Kwan.
The second facet to the issue of classical mise en scène analysis has been tackled, in a far-reaching and rigorous means, by Raymond Bellour because the early ‘90s, when he began co-editing Trafic magazine (based by Serge Daney) and turned his consideration back to cinema—typically quite classical cinema—after an extended interval attending to the revolutions in video and new media art. This work has culminated in his exceptional current magnum opus, Le corps du cinéma (2009). Bellour, it’s protected to speculate, was little question troubled by the restricted scope and attain of the mise en scène custom, especially as it filtered down to us many many years after its heroic age. Not only did it prohibit itself to a rich but finally small body of classical works, especially related to the ‘50s; it additionally stopped in need of those parts in otherwise classical works (these of Hitchcock, as an example, or Ritwik Ghatak) that have been on the very border of classicism, or clearly broke free from it (see McElhaney 2006). Traditional mise en scène criticism had little buy on a lot (even most) that had occurred in cinema beyond the arrival of 1960, all of the New Waves of the world, not to point out its avant-gardes—thus burning altogether the longed-for bridge between cinema and the experiments of the brand new media. In this, Bellour recreated and pushed forward the critique as soon as vociferously voiced by André S. Labarthe in a 1967 Cahiers du cinéma textual content ominously titled “Death of a Word”: for Labarthe, by that moment in cinema historical past, “mise en scène is not only mise en scène, but also the contrary” of the way it had been originally conceived in the days of Louis Delluc (Labarthe 1967: 66).
Bellour puts the matter succinctly (2000b: 112): in the cinematic historical past of the time period mise en scène, an excessive amount of attention has been paid to the scène—its theatrically-derived origin—and never sufficient to the mise, to the elemental strategy of setting up, the organising of parts. To think about (narrative) cinema, in a foundational gesture, as a matter of theatrical scenes—nevertheless reworked by the work of the digital camera and the expansive nature of the set or setting—is already a crippling limitation; yet it’s one which a lot mise en scène criticism fortunately assumes. For with the idea of the centrality of the scene comes a fantastic baggage, which is exactly the luggage of classicism in the arts: continuity, verisimilitude, the ensemble impact in appearing performance, narrative articulation, the necessity for smoothness and fluidity, centring, legibility and formal stability … which may embody the richest type of classical expressivity (that of Jean Renoir, Max Ophuls or Nicholas Ray) or, simply as easily, be shut down right into a merely professional, functional-instrumental craft. At this level in ‘expanded cinema’ historical past, the definitional limitation of mise en scène as an old style software—its virtually fetishistic, quite unrealistic emphasis on the moment of the shoot in cinema, when the camera-take (as pen mark or brush stroke) transforms the scene—has develop into all too obvious. The place do pre-production and post-production—all of the types of preparation and montage—determine on this divine circuit of Romantic creativity? How can a principle of favor or type in cinema—an aesthetic of cinema—ignore manufacturing design (in all its levels), image modifying and the construction of a sound monitor? (Mise en scène criticism, at its simplest and most naïve, is certainly a relic of the—typically lamentably revived—‘film is a visual medium’ period.)
Bellour’s process post-1990 marks, in a sense, a return to the theories of Eisenstein: in cinema there are parts, and intervals between those parts, and hence a set or system of articulations. Allow us to observe an necessary displacement here: the place for a few years the mystique of mise en scène—from Delluc right by way of to current work on depth staging by David Bordwell (2005) or on the elasticity of the filmic scene by Alain Bergala (2000)—has rested on a holistic aesthetic of ‘bodies in space’, Bellour (2000b) prefers to converse of the extra supple, variable and fewer continuous organisation of our bodies and photographs, notably as defined by the always redefined and mutating interaction of digital camera movements, cuts, natural setting or built décor, and figure movements. Aumont made an identical methodological point in a groundbreaking 1978 essay on Godard’s La Chinoise (1967) in relation to the protocols of textual evaluation (Aumont 1982).
Cinema as a medium ceaselessly ‘puts into place’ (this is probably the most literal sense of the time period mise en scène), arranges or articulates, many issues: not just theatrical scenes, but in addition pictures, sounds, gestures, phrases produced as speech, passages of strongly marked rhythm or colour. And right here, even the seemingly empty or inexpressive cadences of articulation—the black frames that may separate photographs, say—have a task to play which is simply as aesthetically determining as the extra clearly full or signifying ones. Therefore Bellour’s provocative spray of latest ideas: mise en phrase, mise en picture, mise en web page, mise en plan, “and above all” mise en pli (Bellour 2000b: 126). Each corresponds to a sure strategy, method or novel gesture of placement of a cloth factor inside a movie: its weaving, ‘spacing’, specific emphasis—and, finally, its particular place and position inside the logic of a cinematic dispositif. Here is the place Elsaesser’s instinct of cinema turning into an audiovisual equipment “only of graphics and animation” (Elsaesser 1993: 46) comes residence to roost: to that we will add Morse’s picture of stacking, and even (to use an old style trope turn into new again within the digital age) the turning of printed pages.
Temporary examples of Bellour’s classes should suffice here. Godard is the determine who has experimented with and demonstrated them all, in several mixtures and with various emphasis: think of the Histoire(s) du cinéma collection, with its performative placement of still pictures (mise en picture), sampled photographs from a whole lot of movies (mise en plan), pictorial design format (mise en web page), and quotations which are written or spoken (mise en phrase). We will also take a far more mainstream, less essayistic instance: think of the phenomenon of ‘explosive speech’ which Australian artist-critic Philip Brophy (1992) has analysed in style cinema, an enormous equipment of image, efficiency and sound marshalled so as to put together and ship a dramatic utterance like Clint Eastwood’s immortal “read my lips” in Soiled Harry (1971). Mise en pli, the textual course of that Bellour describes as the “folding of the physical body of the mise en scène” (Bellour 2000b: 123), a strain that can cut up and even efface the scene, is less widespread: he uses examples from the career of Alain Resnais, starting from the celebrated montage sequence of ambiguous, intertwined bodies “submitted” (Bellour 2000b: 122) to the voice-over textual content in Hiroshima, mon amour (1959), to the hollowing out of a shot by the digital camera panning over a blurry bit of nothingness mid-scene in Mélo (1986) (Bellour 2000b: 123).
Cinema With out Walls
A dispositif is just not a writing or portray from a formless actual; neither is it something arrived at, on the set, spontaneously, intuitively or mystically. It’s a preconceived, or organically developed, work of type. On this sense, the thought of dispositif allows us to conceive of cinema in the holistic method that mise en scène analysis as soon as promised, but failed to deliver: it’s concerning the built-in arrangement of type and content material parts at all ranges, from first conception to remaining mixing and grading. Moreover, its applicability to different audiovisual types, both inventive and cultural, is instantly more in depth: the drive of the analyses of television events by Aumont and Perez is that they determine not only an age-old political mise en scène, but in addition a very specific and very trendy techno-assemblage or agencement of angles, gazes, televisual spaces and the laws that govern (or the strikes that unravel) all of them. One need solely take a look at Harun Farocki’s gallery installations—which, as Blümlinger has noted, goal to reveal “how moving pictures are formally organised” (Blümlinger 2004: 61)—or the peculiar stay performance of the re-editing process by Straub and Huillet in Pedro Costa’s documentary Where Lies Your Hidden Smile? (2001), to see how a cinematic dispositif might be projected into different areas and redistributed in new preparations.
It’s at this level that dispositif considering intersects with one other time period that has turn into richly productive in recent times: intermediality (Martin 2009c). This refers to greater than merely the sheer reality of a multimedia culture, or the blending and copresence of many media types inside specific works (from Olympic Games Opening and Closing ceremonies to Histoire(s) du cinéma). Intermediality, because the crucial work of Belén Vidal (2002 and 2006) has proven, takes us to the strange, hitherto unfamiliar coronary heart of even probably the most seemingly classical and business films, like the heritage variations of beloved novels: right here we see not the seamless blending of citations and allusions from literature, fantastic artwork, the historical past of costume, architecture and so forth, however fairly an evident spray—as in a listing—of all these things and levels, complete with implicit, allegorical ideas as to how, where and why to eat them within the trendy world (therefore the countless, heavily marked photographs, in such films, of characters studying books or taking a look at work). We’re nearer now to the floating, queerly spaced-out realm of fashionable tradition evoked in Timothy Corrigan’s prophetic 1991 guide A Cinema With out Partitions than ever before.
The realm immediately outlined as World Cinema—important surveys eventually taking fuller measure of the work produced in Iran, Africa, India, China, Argentina, Romania, Portugal and so on, past the tried and true Euro-Anglo centres—can also be giving us an pressing impetus to perceive filmic dispositifs as intermedial phenomena. In the productions of Manoel de Oliveira (A Talking Image, 2003), Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Syndromes and a Century, 2006), Miguel Gomes (Our Beloved Month of August, 2008) or Godard (Film Socialism, 2010), traces of so many numerous media (movie, theatre, radio, installation, fiction, documentary) are set in relation to one another like so many ranges, panels, screens or pc home windows, not fused but held distinct and resonating exactly by way of their intervals. That is Bellour’s conclusion a few new understanding of mise en scène: that it may be redefined because the “proper power of the interval” to the extent that there is a “readability of the interval between shots” in addition to a “readability of the work that operates a transformation of this interval” (Bellour 2000b: 125).
It isn’t completely a matter of inventing a new essential idiom in order to grasp all of this. In some methods, a practice of such analytical work has long existed, in nevertheless fragmentary or unrecognised a type. There are parts of dispositif perception in the work of many critics often related to the expressive faculty. Manny Farber was an astute observer of what he referred to as the “ritualised syntax” (1998: 310) and “stylistic moves” (1998: 324) in administrators together with Fassbinder and Duras. Jean Douchet (1993) invented a ‘V Diagram’ to decipher the attribute mise en scène arrangements in Mizoguchi. In Perez’s account (1998) of Straub-Huillet, every little thing that occurs (dramatically, sensually and intellectually) from shot to shot of their movies occurs because of the establishing of, and delicate variation inside, a dispositif of shot-counter shot and eyeline relations – not in extra of or beside this dispositif (which might be the default position of much expressive criticism). Certainly, taking an strategy to cinema by way of the dispositif might nicely permit us to overcome the contradiction pinpointed strongly in recent times by Ian Hunter in his critique of the modern ‘moment of theory’ (King 2008): the tendency for criticism (even probably the most refined) to swing, in an unconsciously opportunistic trend, between the code (eg, the code of classical narrative) and its extra or surplus. As I’ve argued elsewhere (2009b), it is, fairly, the class of textual logic that we must reinvestigate and reinvigorate—neither the strict (structuralist) code nor its liberatory (poststructuralist) surplus.
Allow us to return, finally, to Brenez’s problem (1997) to produce a “Bazinian exigency maintained at the heart of a type of non-Bazinian analysis”. Bazin’s work, as we shall see if we take a look at it intently once more in the present day, was all the time of a dual-edged nature: he has been taken because the spokesperson for clear realism, but in fact his position (as clearly said in his unfinished guide on Jean Renoir) was that “realism does not at all mean a renunciation of style”—happening to stake his ethical-aesthetic choice that “cinematic expression must be dialectically fused with reality and not with artifice” (Bazin 1986: 106). Yet this opens the potential for exactly the opposing choice: that cinematic expression may also be dialectically fused with artifice. Moreover, Bazin spoke with equal passion and conviction of the vocation of an impure cinema (Bazin 2009), and it’s to this concept that Bellour returned at the dawn of our new, digital 21st century:
Thus, the cinema, this impure artwork as Bazin referred to as it, since it is inspired by all the opposite arts whereas offering up reality itself, paradoxically features in purity to the extent that its most lively fact becomes the truth of its dispositif. (Bellour 2000a: 52, translation mine)
The truth of cinema’s dispositif: on one degree, this thought returns us (as Duguet [1988: 240] has astutely pointed out) to the positions in art historical past and criticism concerning medium specificity, from Clement Greenberg to Michael Fried, which were central to modernism. Greenberg’s argument that “what had to be exhibited and made explicit was that which was unique and irreducible not only in art in general, but also in each particular art”, and that an artwork “had to determine, through the operations peculiar to itself, the effects peculiar and exclusive to itself” (1982: 5) finds its echo at the moment in Stephen Melville’s assertion (made in relation to post-minimalist portray, however common among some avant-garde filmmakers) that a murals in a specific medium “counts” as such only when it manages to define and make manifest its materiality “where it is most in doubt”, by means of a ceaseless “work of measuring and discovery” (Melville 2001: Three).
On another degree, cinema is unquestionably a paradoxical object: its medium-specific risk appears to have been properly and really overrun by its tendency to intermediality, its elementary impurity. That is where its true materiality-effect, right now, is located: in the palpable aura of a mise en scène that is all the time lower than itself and more than itself, not solely itself but in addition its contrary, ever vanishing and yet ever renewed across a thousand and one screens, platforms and dispositifs.
This essay is a part of work funded by the Australian Research Council by means of Monash University for 2010-2012, on the subject of “Between Film and Art: An International Study of Intermedial Cinema”.
Giorgio Agamben (trans. David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella), What is an Apparatus? (Stanford College Press, 2009).
François Albera, “Mise en scène et rituals sociaux”, in Jacques Aumont (ed.), La mise en scène (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2000), pp. 219-31.
Jacques Aumont, “This is Not a Textual Analysis”, Digital camera Obscura, no. Eight/9/10 (1982), pp. 131-60.
Jacques Aumont (ed.), La mise en scène (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2000).
Jacques Aumont, Le cinéma et la mise en scène (Paris: Armand Colin, 2006).
Erika Balsom, “A Cinema in the Gallery, a Cinema in Ruins”, Display 50, no. 4 (Winter 2009), pp. 411-27.
Jean-Louis Baudry, L’Effet cinéma (Paris: Albatros, 1978).
André Bazin (trans. Timothy Barnard), What is Cinema? (Montreal: Caboose, 2009).
André Bazin (trans. W.W. Halsey II and William. H. Simon), Jean Renoir (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986).
Raymond Bellour, “La querelle des dispositifs”, Art Press 262 (November 2000a), pp. 48-52.
Raymond Bellour, “Figures aux allures de plans”, in Jacques Aumont (ed.), La mise en scène (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2000b), pp. 109-126.
Raymond Bellour, “Paris, 25 September 1997”, in Jonathan Rosenbaum and Adrian Martin (eds.), Film Mutations: The Changing Face of Modern Cinephilia (London: British Film Institute, 2003), pp. 27-34.
Raymond Bellour, Le corps du cinéma. Hypnoses, émotions, animalités (Paris: P.O.L, 2009).
Alain Bergala, “L’intervalle”, in Jacques Aumont (ed.), La mise en scène (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2000b), pp. 25-35.
Patrice Blouin, “Shirin”, Cahiers du cinéma 652 (January 2010), p. 74.
Christa Blümlinger, “Incisive Divides and Revolving Images: On the Installation Schnittstelle”, in Thomas Elsaesser (ed.), Harun Farocki: Working on the Sight-lines (Amsterdan University Press, 2004), pp. 61-76.
Christa Blumlinger, “The Imaginary in the Documentary Image: Chris Marker’s Level Five”, Picture [&] Narrative, Vol 11, No 1 (2010), .
David Bordwell, Figures Traced in Mild: On Cinematic Staging (College of California Press, 2005).
Nicole Brenez, “The Ultimate Journey: Remarks on Contemporary Theory”, trans. William D. Routt, Screening the Previous 2 (December 1997), .
Nicole Brenez, “Paris, 18 August 1997”, in Jonathan Rosenbaum and Adrian Martin (eds.), Film Mutations: The Altering Face of Modern Cinephilia (London: British Movie Institute, 2003), pp. 19-27.
Philip Brophy, “Read My Lips”, in Adrian Martin (ed.), Movie – Issues of Type (Perth: Continuum, 1992), pp. 246-66.
Theresa Hak Kyung Cha (ed.), Equipment (New York: Tanam Press, 1981).
Jean-Louis Comolli, Voir et pouvoir. L’innocence perdue, cinéma, télévision, fiction, documentaire (Paris: Verdier, 2004).
Timothy Corrigan, A Cinema Without Partitions: Films and Culture After Vietnam (New Brunswick: Rutgers College Press, 1991).
Sean Cubitt, The Cinema Impact (MIT Press, 2004).
Dag, “The VideoSift Pomplamoose Interview”, December 2009,
Gilles Deleuze, “What is a dispositif?”, in Timothy J. Armstrong (ed.), Michel Foucault Thinker (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 159-168.
Jean Douchet, “Mizoguchi: la réflexion du désir”, Cahiers du cinéma, no. 463 (January 1993), pp. 24-7.
Anne-Marie Duguet, “Dispositifs”, Communications, no. 48 (1988), pp. 221-248.
Anne-Marie Duguet, Déjouer l’image. Créations électroniques et numériques (Nîmes: CNAP/Jacqueline Chambon, 2002).
Thomas Elsaesser, “Vincente Minnelli”, in Rick Altman (ed.), Genre: The Musical (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 8-27.
Thomas Elsaesser, “Film Studies in Search of the Object”, Movie Criticism 17, no. 2/Three (1993), pp. 40-47. Initially revealed as “Etat de la recherche et place du cinéma”, Hors cadre 10 (1992).
Manny Farber, Unfavourable Area (New York: Da Capo, 1998).
Vilém Flusser (trans. Claude Maillard), La Civilisation des médias (Belval: Circé, 2006).
Daniel Frampton, Filmosophy (London: Wallflower, 2006).
John Gibbs, “Filmmakers’ Choices”, in Shut-Up 01, eds. John Gibbs and Douglas Pye (London: Wallflower Press, 2006), pp. 1-87.
Frieda Grafe, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (London: British Movie Institute, 1996).
Clement Greenberg, “Modernist Painting”, in Francis Frascina and Charles Harrison (eds.), Trendy Artwork and Modernism: A Important Anthology (London: Harper and Row, 1982), pp. 5-14.
Barrett Hodsdon, ‘The Mystique of mise en scène Revisited’, in Adrian Martin (ed.), Movie – Issues of Type (Perth: Continuum, 1992), pp. 68-86.
Frank Kessler, “‘Les Américains ne connaissent pas le mot schreiten …’. La mise en scène du corps de l’étranger”, in Jacques Aumont (ed.), La mise en scène (Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2000), pp. 47-58.
Frank Kessler, “The Cinema of Attractions as Dispositif”, in Wanda Strauven (ed.), The Cinema of Points of interest Reloaded (Amsterdam: Amsterdam College Press, 2006a), pp. 57-70.
Frank Kessler, “Notes on dispositif”, 2006b, .
Noel King, “‘Another Way of Being an Intellectual’: An Interview with Ian Hunter”, Communication, Politics & Culture, Vol 41 No 1 (2008), pp. 47-62.
André S. Labarthe, “Mort d’un mot”, Cahiers du cinéma, no. 195 (November 1967), p. 66.
Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media (MIT Press, 2002).
Jean-Francois Lyotard, Libidinal Financial system, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant (London: The Athlone Press, 1993).
Adrian Martin, “Mise en scène is Dead; or The Expressive, The Excessive, The Technical and The Stylish”, in A. Martin (ed.), Movie – Matters of Fashion (Perth: Continuum, 1992), pp. 87-140.
Adrian Martin, “Vilém Flusser”, in Felicity Colman (ed.), Film, Concept and Philosophy: The Key Thinkers (Durham: Acumen, 2009a), pp. 31-9.
Adrian Martin, “Beyond the Fragments of Cinephilia: Towards a Synthetic Analysis”, in Scott Balcerzak & Jason Sperb (eds.), Cinephilia in the Age of Digital Copy: Film, Pleasure and Digital Culture Vol 1 (London: Wallflower Press, 2009b), pp. 30-53.
Adrian Martin, “The Long Path Back: Medievalism and Film”, Screening the Past, no. 26 (2009c), .
Adrian Martin, “Social Mise en scène”, forthcoming in Movie (2011).
Harry Mathews, The Case of the Persevering Maltese: Collected Essays (Urbana-Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press, 2003).
Joe McElhaney, The Demise of Classical Cinema: Hitchcock, Lang, Minnelli (State University of New York Press, 2006).
Joe McElhaney (ed.), Vincente Minnelli: The Artwork of Entertainment (2009: Wayne State College Press, 2009).
Stephen Melville, “Counting/As/Painting”, in Philip Armstrong, Laura Lisbon and Melville (eds.), As Portray: Division and Displacement (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2001), pp. 1-26.
Christian Metz (trans. B. Brewster, C. Britton, A. Guzzetti & A. Williams), The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982).
Margaret Morse, “An Ontology of Everyday Distraction: The Freeway, the Mall, and Television”, in Logics of Tv: Essays in Cultural Criticism, ed. Patricia Mellencamp (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 193-221. Reprinted in Morse’s ebook Virtualities: Television, Media Art, and Cyberculture (Bloomington: Indiana College Press, 1998).
Luc Moullet, “Les dispositifs du cinéma contemporain”, Esprit 337 (2007), pp. 121-130.
Laura Mulvey, “Some Reflections on the Cinephilia Question”, Framework, Vol 50 No. 1 & 2 (Spring/Fall 2009), pp. 190-Three .
Gilberto Perez, The Material Ghost: Films and Their Medium (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1998).
V.F. Perkins, “Where is the World? The Horizon of Events in Movie Fiction”, in John Gibbs and Douglas Pye (eds.), Fashion and Which means: Research within the Detailed Evaluation of Film (Manchester University Press, 2005), pp. 16-41.
V.F. Perkins, “Le Plaisir”, Film Quarterly, Vol 63 No 1 (Fall 2009), pp. 15-22.
Pomplamoose website, .
Raúl Ruiz, Entretiens (Paris: Hoëbeke, 1999).
theBestArts, “Pomplamoose Music – Nataly Dawn and Jack Conte”, 2009, .
Deborah Thomas, “‘Knowing One’s Place’: Frame-breaking, Embarrassment and Irony in La Cérémonie (Claude Chabrol, 1995)”, in John Gibbs and Douglas Pye (eds.), Type and Which means: Studies in the Detailed Analysis of Movie (Manchester College Press, 2005), pp. 167-78.
Belén Vidal, “Classic Adaptations, Modern Reinventions: Reading the Image in the Contemporary Literary Film”, Display, 43/1 (2002), pp. 5-18.
Belén Vidal, “Labyrinths of Loss: The Letter as Figure of Desire and Deferral in the Literary Film”, Journal of European Research, 36/four (2006), pp. 418-436.