global art cinema new theories and histories apr 2010

Global Art Cinema


This page intentionally left blank


Global Art Cinema
New Theories and Histories

Edited by
Rosalind Galt
Karl Schoonover

2010


Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further
Oxford University’s objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Copyright © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Global art cinema : new theories and histories/
edited by Rosalind Galt and Karl Schoonover.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-19-538562-5; 978-0-19-538563-2 (pbk.)
1. Motion pictures—Aesthetics. 2. Independent filmmakers.
I. Galt, Rosalind. II. Schoonover, Karl.
PN1995.G543 2010
791.4301—dc22
2009026100

2 4 6 8 9 7 5 3 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper


Foreword
Dudley Andrew

I never apologize for combining the word “art” with the word
“cinema.” You would need a nineteenth-century conception of art—a
cliché even then—to cast it as effete. After Freud, Trotsky, Benjamin,

and Adorno, after futurism, constructivism, dada, surrealism, and
the explosion of pop, it seems hard to remember that art—and the art
film—was once considered the spiritual playground or retreat of a
bourgeois elite. True, there had been “Film d’Art” around 1910, best
remembered for the black-tie audience assembled for the premiere of
L’Assassinat du duc de Guise at the Paris Opéra with music composed
by Saint-Saens. And in the 1920s certain patrons of “The Seventh
Art” treated cinema as though it were a debutante being introduced
into high society. In Film as Art (Film als Kunst, 1932) Rudolf Arnheim
consolidated the aesthetic principles achieved toward the end of the
silent era, principles based on classical painting (balance, emphasis,
discretion, and so forth). But Duchamp, Leger, and Buñuel had
already blustered in to spoil the ball.
When cinema next attached itself to art, after the Second World
War, it was not to emulate the forms and functions of painting or
drama, but to adopt the intensity of their creation and experience.
For even when it is seemingly “ready-made,” “trouvé,” “informe,” or
“absurd,” art is exigent in the demands it makes on makers and
viewers. Art cinema is “ambitious,” the word with which Franỗois
Truffaut characterized the filmmakers he championed, the filmmaker he wanted to become. If cineastes are artists, it is because they
v


vi Foreword

partake of the ambition of genuine novelists, painters, and sculptors
to supersede the norm, each in his own domain.
In 1972 Victor Perkins answered Film as Art with his own Film as
Film. We loved this title. It demonstrated that cinema had arrived,
had come into its own and no longer needed the corroboration of

established aesthetics to be taken seriously. A terrific book, it pointed
to the most telling and complex moments within a spectrum of
films from Hollywood genre pieces to silent classics. As his title
announced, Perkins oriented us to experience and to explore films
on their own terms. He adjusted his rhetoric so as to enter not so
much the discourse as the world projected before him. You can argue
that art cinema, like art in general, serves contradictory functions
(as cultural capital—indeed as actual capital—as propaganda or critique of ideology, as mass entertainment, etc); but those who live
their lives in tandem with cinema care precisely about the function
of film as film, even while understanding it to be congenitally
impure—as Bazin insisted—and enmeshed in the terrestrial and
the social.
Global Art Cinema: the first adjective of this title binds what it modifies to a mesh of relations that keep the whole thing from floating up
and away like a balloon. At the same time “Art Cinema” is by definition pan-national, following the urge of every ambitious film to take
off from its point of release, so as to encounter other viewers, and
other movies, elsewhere and later. The title in fact begs a question
debated in comparative literature over the vexed term, dating from
Goethe, of Weltliteratur. For David Damrosch, a text joins the community of world literature when it finds sustained reception beyond
the borders of the specific community out of which it arose. World
literature comprises not just a huge bibliography of works, but more
pertinently the complex interactions among these works, as they form
the mixed traditions absorbed by later writers, as they are consumed
by various communities of readers, and as they are tracked and interpreted by scholars and academics. Perched on the promontories of
their carefully erected theories, scholars have been tempted to sense
intelligent design in the evolution of world literature. On behalf of
literature they take note of contributions that come from unlikely
quarters where new topics, new techniques, and new generic hybrids
stretch language across more and more realms and types of experience. As for the rest of writing (all those newspaper essays and serial
stories that are thrown away, those folktales never leaving the local
language, that doggerel whose echoes remain in homes and cafés), is

this not material for the anthropologist more than the literary scholar?
Such materials give insights into what is valued by individuals and
groups, but, if never translated, these texts interact not at all with


Foreword

readers outside the community. Goethe and Damrosch would leave
them alone, and so does global art cinema.
No one would dispute the value of the visual culture of any given
time or place, or even the beauty of some of its expressions; no one
would doubt the artistry, intelligence, and wit that has gone into innumerable state-commissioned documentaries, popular television
shows, advertisements, home movies, and episodes of local film
series. But insofar as these remain within the culture, discovered perhaps by scholars interested in those cultures, they do not participate
in the cultural economy of world film and certainly do not belong to
anything one would label global art cinema.
The latter might best be thought of as festival fare, since today
every film programmed by an international festival becomes de facto
visible to spectators anywhere on the globe who seek out distinctive
movies. In the early days of festivals, titles were selected by national
commissions to go abroad, whereas today festivals select what they
show, sometimes even commissioning work by artists they deem talented. This does not upset the rapport of national culture to the culture of the cinephile, but it accelerates its movement. For example, of
the hundred films made each year in the Philippines this past decade,
only fifteen or so can be identified as part of the Philippine art cinema, specifically those that have been selected to be screened abroad.
Whereas it took the Taiwanese new wave several years to penetrate
the international market, the Philippine titles in today’s global network have instantly left their imprint, altering the profile of Asian
cinema in toto. So there would seem to be two distinct Philippine
cinemas, one belonging to a specific culture bound principally by the
Tagalog language, and the other taken up by a polyglot international
audience who can access these films at festivals or download them on

their computers.
To take an even clearer example, every other year FESPACO (Festival du Cinéma Panafricain) screens about 100 films from Francophone African countries, both sub-Saharan and Maghrebian, as well
as an increasing number of titles from South Africa and Zimbabwe.
My students learn the names of cineastes from Senegal, Mali, and
Burkina Faso whose work is funded in Europe and who expect to be
screened on several continents, then distributed on DVD through
the Parisian outlet Cine3mondes. Only one Nigerian film, however,
has ever been showcased at FESPACO or been treated to the chance
at wide reception, despite the fact that Nigeria produces an estimated
1,500 videofilms annually. Ezra, which took top prize at that festival
in 2007, was, you might suspect, an exception to Nollywood, financed
as it was mainly outside Nigeria (by ARTE), with screenings in Paris
and a brief run in New York. Otherwise Nollywood has been an

vii


viii Foreword

antiglobal phenomenon of stupendous proportions, worth a place in
a course on world cinema, but a place apart. Whereas FESPACO titles attract local and “tourist” audiences, exhibiting a dialectic central to my course’s conception of world cinema, Nollywood doesn’t
look out for us, and hasn’t been concerned about our reaction. Hence
it gets treated, if at all, as rich anthropological material, a vibrant folk
expression, grassroots graffiti, not meant for viewers outside the
community. Of course these videofilms now crop up in London,
New York, Toronto, and New Haven, wherever the diasporic community thrives. And some titles may well drift beyond these communities to be discovered by a broader audience, in the manner of
certain Bollywood films recently. This could include some “classic
title” that was made in the early years of this folk phenomenon, now
rediscovered and singled out for a festival showing or DVD release
because a cultural entrepreneur thought it had something to show

(or say) to seasoned film viewers. The distinction between local and
international is thus not about value, but about address. What
“global” adds to all this is simultaneity. We used to discover local
films belatedly and gradually. Look at the example of Mizoguchi or
of the Yugoslavian “black wave” of the 1960s and 1970s. Today,
however, an art film made in Tajikistan may well be seen in Japan
before it screens at home.
As for the designation “art” within global art cinema, the local plays
a key role. I have always credited art, and particularly film art, with
exposing or figuring phenomena previously unrepresented. I rely for
this on Bazin’s incomparably crucial distinction between realism as a
set of conventions and neorealism as a moral attitude toward the
alterity of what is nearby. In his day, La terra trema allowed all of Italy,
and then the world at large, to hear for the first time the sounds (the
poetry) of Sicilian dialect, and to sense the complex economy linking
extended families to larger social groups, and those groups to both an
exploitative economy that went beyond the visible and the fishing
fields themselves, including the boats and nets and human beings
that make it into an industry. As Giorgio De Vincenti understood,
perhaps before anyone else, modernist cinema arose when new realities such as this one in postwar Italy forced filmmakers into concocting ingenious narrative and stylistic strategies to bring them onto the
plane of expression.
From neorealism flowed the various new waves of the 1960s and of
the 1980s, the core of what has become global art cinema. Take Taiwan in 1983. Hou Hsiao-hsien had little schooling in world cinema;
effectively a cog in the Taiwanese genre system of the 1970s, Hong
Kong films comprised most of what he took to be foreign fare. Yet,
when given a chance, he came up with his distinctive style in response


Foreword

to a need to represent the invisible peoples of Taiwan and their
unheard voices. A literary neorealism preceded him there, it must be
said, just as Elio Vittorini preceded Visconti in giving voice to Sicilian
language and concerns. The style Hou Hsiao-hsien perfected during
the 1980s, leading to his triumph at Venice with City of Sadness, did
not involve studying global cinema or international modernism; it
came about as he worked out solutions to problems in representation
posed by the local (historical) situation he was determined to do
justice to.
Might we expect another such talent, nearly autodidact, to arise
somewhere else? Should we be looking near and far? Probably not.
Since the 1980s, VHS tapes and then DVDs have made every ambitious filmmaker perforce a global artist. True, festivals reward novelty. They seek it out and they provoke it. They tempt filmmakers into
stylistic postures that are calculated to sit attractively and prominently
within a spectrum of other styles that the filmmaker has undoubtedly
already examined. More often, the novelty needed to keep the economy
of film art moving ahead is produced through generic hybrids. Festivals are hothouses where such hybrids are concocted, take root, and
eventually flower; this is where a European cameraperson can meet a
Chinese designer at dinner with a Japanese producer interested in
exploiting a variant of the ghost-melodrama or horror-comedy. I don’t
mean to sound cynical. Such hothouses “force” the flowering of films
that are often wonderful to see. But we should be alert to disingenuous hyping, whether of supposedly innocent auteurs or of brandnew new waves. The very idea of “independent cinema” has been
altered by what is now a fully global network that makes every film
quite “dependent.”
Yet these new conditions have not fundamentally altered conditions that have been with cinema for most of its existence. Distributors, exhibitors, and, above all, critics, have always identified notable
titles, trying to amplify them so they could be recognized above the
hum of standard industrial fare. Even before festivals began collecting each year’s most talented cinematic voices, distinctions were
made. Whether or not “art cinema” named such distinctions, exporters
aimed to sell what films they could abroad. In the period I know best,
France in the 1930s, out of about 130 films made each year, a score
found themselves shipped out of the country, where they interacted

with other export films in an unofficial competition. Poetic realist titles by Carné, Duvivier, Feyder, Renoir, and Grémillon were viewed
throughout Europe, and then were acclaimed in Japan, and played
well in Latin America. They were treated as sophisticated and “artistic,” first in comparison with other internationally distributed films,
and then in relation to standard fare wherever they played. Standard

ix


x

Foreword

fare, including the more than one hundred French films that never
left the country, kept the national system afloat and arguably better
defined the national community and its values than did those early
avatars of global art cinema.
To distinguish not just particular styles in the 1930s, but larger
contexts affecting production, reception, and film culture (criticism,
government support or regulation, advertising and exhibition strategies), I came up with the neologism optique. In the context of this
anthology, I would distinguish three optiques that have been operative for a long time, even while technological and social developments have caused them to vary: (1) national folk films, (2) global
entertainment movies, and (3) international art cinema. The first
category covers Nollywood, as we have seen, nearly invisible outside
the Nigerian community, but also those massively popular genres
scarcely comprehensible outside the community that they address
and express (Tagalog comedies, German heimat melodramas, etc.).
The second category, apparently ascendant in our era, includes
blockbusters, to be sure, but most Hollywood films as well, whose
income derives more from offshore than domestic performance.
Pan-national genre productions, like Asian horror, spaghetti westerns, and Swedish soft-core, show that the global optique need not
address all spectators everywhere, but can target a subset that globalization allows them to locate. Television series made in Mexico or

Korea but viewed in the Middle East, Africa, Russia, and by individuals in the United States have added a new dimension to this global
entertainment category.
Festivals and critics work tirelessly to distinguish the third optique,
lest “art cinema” be taken as merely a niche genre of this second category. Thus no festival that I know of calls itself “global,” while many
are called “international” or “world” events. Hence the provocation
and the challenge of this anthology’s title and mission. What used to
be treated as a tension between national values and the international
market, today takes place across a global network that has absorbed
both. The Web is quickly providing new distribution channels, formats, and cultures of reception. Those frightened by such a seemingly unregulated proliferation need only remember recent clashes of
national and “art cinema.” Such was his pique at the treatment he
had been given in Taiwan that Edward Yang could produce an international art-house (and global DVD) hit like Yi Yi, yet refuse to let the
film play in his native country where it was shot. The struggles filmmakers face at home often generate the heat that forges the strength
of their creations. Jia Zhangke charisma derives in large part from
the difficulties, even the hostility, with which he has been treated in
China. The existence of something like “global art cinema” is, in his


Foreword

case, literally a saving grace. And what he has produced under that
mantle graces us all.
By whatever name we call it, may the optique that informs ambitious
filmmakers continue to galvanize ambitious viewers (let’s not call
ourselves consumers), so that a vibrant film culture may grow in
response to strong films and to the realities they figure.

xi


This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

This book benefited greatly from the critical eyes of our colleagues
Jennifer Fay and John David Rhodes, as well as from the feedback
of the volume’s anonymous readers. It could not have happened
without the generosity of many other people as well: Nicole Rizzuto,
Jennifer Wild, Corey Creekmur, Chris Cagle, Laura McMullin,
Michael Lawrence, Patrick O’Donnell, and especially Lloyd Pratt
and Adrian Goycoolea. Elizabeth White, Emilia Cheng, and Hyunsoo Jang provided invaluable help in the final stages of the project.
Our students enriched and refined the conception of this project,
especially those in Karl’s undergraduate seminar “The Geopolitics
of Art Cinema,” in his graduate course “The World,” and in Rosalind’s graduate seminar “Rethinking European Cinema.” This book
also benefited from the enthusiasm and guidance of our colleagues
at the University of Iowa, the University of Sussex, and Michigan
State University.
The editing and research of this book was a transatlantic venture
and would not have been possible without the generous support of
Michigan State University. In particular, the project received essential funds from three university sources: the Global Literary and
Cultural Studies Research Cluster, the College of Arts and Letters
Research Initiation Incentive Grant, and the Department of English.
Librarians at the British Library, the British Film Institute library,
Anthology Film Archives, and the Billy Rose Theatre Collection in the
Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the
xiii


xiv

Acknowledgments

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts were extremely
helpful. We would particularly like to thank the staff at the Cullman
Center’s copy center, who are, as always, amazing.
Shannon McLachlan at Oxford University Press embraced our conception of what Global Art Cinema might look like from the start. Her
unwavering commitment has sustained the project, and her enthusiasm for what we were trying to do sustained us. Moreover, her
keen sense of exactly what was needed and how to achieve it has
shepherded the collection brilliantly. Brendan O’Neill at Oxford has
also been a great help and a reassuring presence. Finally, we would
like to thank our contributors. Some of you were involved in the
project from its inception and have remained faithful over its
longue durée. Others of you joined us along the way, unflustered
by quick turnarounds. All of you surpassed our expectations by
bringing nuance and depth to the subject in ways we could never
have anticipated.


Contents

Foreword
Dudley Andrew
Contributors
Introduction: The Impurity of Art
Cinema
Rosalind Galt and Karl Schoonover

v
xix

3

Part I. Delimiting the Field
. Beyond Europe: On Parametric
Transcendence
Mark Betz
. The Fantastic Trajectory of
Pink Art Cinema from Stalin
to Bush
Sharon Hayashi
. Toward an Inclusive, Exclusive
Approach to Art Cinema
David Andrews

31

48

62

xv


xvi

Contents

. Unthinking Heterocentrism:
Bisexual Representability in
Art Cinema

Maria San Filippo
. Interactive Art Cinema: Between
“Old” and “New” Media with Un
Chien andalou and eXistenZ
Adam Lowenstein

75

92

Part II. The Art Cinema Image
. Art/Cinema and
Cosmopolitanism Today
Brian Price
. Between Auditorium and Gallery:
Perception in Apichatpong
Weerasethakul’s Films and
Installations
Jihoon Kim
. Pasolini’s Exquisite Flowers:
The “ Cinema of Poetry ” as a
Theory of Art Cinema
John David Rhodes
. From Index to Figure in the
European Art Film: The Case
of The Conformist
Angelo Restivo
. Surrealism in Art and Film: Face
and Time
Angela Dalle Vacche

109

125

142

164

181

Part III. Art Cinema Histories
. The Volcano and the Barren
Hill: Gabriel Figueroa and the
Space of Art Cinema
Patrick Keating
. The Essay Film as a Cinema of
Ideas
Timothy Corrigan

201

218


Contents

. The Cloud-Capped Star: Ritwik
Ghatak on the Horizon of
Global Art Cinema

Manishita Dass
. Notes on Art Cinema and the
Emergence of Sub-Saharan Film
Philip Rosen
. Disentangling the
International Festival Circuit:
Genre and Iranian Cinema
Azadeh Farahmand

238

252

263

Part IV. Geopolitical Intersections
. European Art Cinema, Affect,
and Postcolonialism: Herzog,
Denis, and the Dardenne
Brothers
285
E. Ann Kaplan
. Offering Tales They Want to
Hear: Transnational European
Film Funding as Neo-Orientalism 303
Randall Halle
. Abderrahmane Sissako: Second
and Third Cinema in the First
Person
320

Rachel Gabara
. Tsai Ming-liang’s Haunted Movie
Theater
334
Jean Ma
. Traveling Theory, Shots, and
Players: Jorge Sanjinés, New
Latin American Cinema, and the
European Art Film
351
Dennis Hanlon

Critical Bibliography
Index

367
373

xvii


This page intentionally left blank


Contributors

The Editors
Rosalind Galt is a senior lecturer in film studies at the University of Sussex. She is the author of The New European Cinema:
Redrawing the Map (2006) as well as articles in journals such as
Screen, Camera Obscura, Cinema Journal, and Discourse, and in the

collections European Film Theory (2008) and On Michael Haneke
(2010). She is currently completing a book on the aesthetics and politics of the pretty.
Karl Schoonover is an assistant professor of film studies in
the Department of English at Michigan State University. His research
focuses on realism, classical film theory, international cinema, and
theories of the photographic image. He is completing a book that
examines how Italian neorealist films shaped U.S. film culture after
World War II, refashioning the practice and politics of film-going. He
has published essays on spirit photography, U.S. advertisements for
foreign films, and the politics of stardom in trash cinema.

The Contributors
Dudley Andrew, the R. Selden Rose Professor of Film Studies
and Comparative Literature at Yale University, began his career as a
commentator on film theory, including the biography of André Bazin,
xix


xx Contributors

while publishing on complex films, especially those by Mizoguchi
(Film in the Aura of Art, 1984). Then came work on French film and
culture, anchored by Mists of Regret (1995) and Popular Front Paris
(2005). Currently he is writing Approaches to Problems in World Cinema, as well as contributing a volume on cinema for the Blackwell
Manifestos series.

David Andrews has taught on four college campuses. Now an
independent scholar, he has published articles on art cinema, pornography, and aestheticism in many journals, including the Journal
of Film and Video, Cinema Journal, Velvet Light Trap, Post Script, Film
Criticism, and Television and New Media. The Ohio State University

Press published his most recent book, Soft in the Middle: The Contemporary Softcore Feature in Its Contexts (2006), the first genre survey
devoted to soft-core cinema. He is currently finishing his third singleauthor book, Theory of Art Cinemas, which is under contract with the
University of Texas Press.

Mark Betz is a senior lecturer in the Film Studies department at
King’s College, University of London. He is the author of Beyond the
Subtitle: Remapping European Art Cinema (2009) and has published
essays on art/exploitation cinema marketing, the academicization of
film studies via book publishing, and contemporary film modernism.
He is currently working on a study of foreign film distribution in
America.
Timothy Corrigan is a professor of English, cinema studies,
and history of art at the University of Pennsylvania. His work in cinema studies has focused on modern American and international
cinema, as well as pedagogy. His books include New German Film:
The Displaced Image (1983, 1994), The Films of Werner Herzog: Between
Mirage and History (1986), Writing about Film (1989, 2009), A Cinema without Walls: Movies and Culture after Vietnam (1991), and, coauthored with Patricia White, The Film Experience (2004, 2009). He
has edited two forthcoming books, American Cinema 2000–2009
(2010) and, with Patricia White, Critical Visions: Classical and Contemporary Readings in Film Theory (2010). He is presently completing a
study of the essay film.

Angela Dalle Vacche is a professor of film studies at the
Georgia Institute of Technology and the author of The Body in The
Mirror: Shapes of History in Italian Cinema (1992), Cinema and
Painting (1996), and Diva: Defiance and Passion in Early Italian Cinema (2008). She has also edited The Visual Turn: Classical Film
Theory and Art History (2002) and, with Brian Price, Color: The Film
Reader (2006). She has received grants and fellowships from the


Contributors

Fulbright Program, the Mellon Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Leverhulme Trust. She is currently working on a book
titled André Bazin: Film, Art and the Scientific Imagination.

Manishita Dass is an assistant professor at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, with a joint appointment in screen arts and
cultures and Asian languages and cultures. Her research focuses on
the intersection of film, literary, and political cultures in early- to midtwentieth-century India, colonialism and silent cinema, the geopolitical imaginary of film studies, and the visual and literary worlds of
Bengali modernity. She is currently completing a book, Outside the
Lettered City: Cinema, Modernity and Public Culture in Late Colonial
India, and has an article on Indian silent cinema in Cinema Journal
(Summer 2009).
Azadeh Farahmand has a Ph.D. in cinema and media studies
from the University of California at Los Angeles. She has worked in
the advertising department of nationwide chain Landmark Theatres
and managed international marketing and festival placement of films
at Peace Arch Entertainment, a Canadian-based international sales
agent. She contributed a chapter to The New Iranian Cinema: Politics,
Representation and Identity (2002), and her writings have appeared in
Film Quarterly, Jusur, and Intersections. She currently conducts marketing research at the motion picture group of OTX, a global research
and consulting firm, and teaches in the communication studies
department at California State University, Los Angeles.

Rachel Gabara is associate professor of French at the University of Georgia, where she teaches French and Francophone literature
and film. She is the author of From Split to Screened Selves: French and
Francophone Autobiography in the Third Person (2006), and her articles include “‘A Poetics of Refusals’: Neorealism from Italy to Africa,”
in the Quarterly Review of Film and Video, and “Mixing Impossible
Genres: David Achkar and African AutoBiographical Documentary,”
in New Literary History. She is currently writing a book entitled
Reclaiming Realism: From Colonial to Contemporary Documentary in
West and Central Africa.

Randall Halle is the Klaus W. Jonas Professor of German
Film and Cultural Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. His essays
have appeared in journals such as New German Critique, Screen, and
German Quarterly. He is the co-editor of After the Avant-Garde (2008),
Light Motives: German Popular Film in Perspective (2003), and a special
double issue of Camera Obscura on “Marginality and Alterity in Contemporary European Cinema.” He is the author of Queer Social Philosophy: Critical Readings from Kant to Adorno (2004) and German

xxi


xxii Contributors

Film after Germany: Toward a Transnational Aesthetic (2008). He has
held fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities,
Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD), the Social Science Research Council, and the Fulbright Program.

Dennis Hanlon, a doctoral candidate in film studies at the
University of Iowa, is completing a dissertation on the films and
theory of Jorge Sanjinés. His articles have been published or are
forthcoming in Mosaic and Film and History.

Sharon Hayashi is assistant professor of cinema and media
studies in the Department of Film at York University, Toronto. Her
current research interests include the uses of new media by new
social movements and the architecture of cinema. She has published
articles in Japanese and English on new media, Japanese pink cinema, and the travel films of Hiroshi Shimizu, and is currently completing a book on the transition to sound in the Japanese wartime
cinema.

E. Ann Kaplan is Distinguished Professor of English and Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies at Stony Brook University,

where she also founded and directs the Humanities Institute. She has
written many books and articles on topics in cultural studies, media,
and women’s studies, from diverse theoretical perspectives, including
psychoanalysis, feminism, postmodernism, and postcolonialism. Her
pioneering research on women in film has been translated into
six languages. Her recent books include Trauma and Cinema:
Cross-Cultural Explorations (co-edited with Ban Wang, 2004), Feminism
and Film (2000), and the monograph Trauma Culture: The Politics of
Terror and Loss in Media and Literature (2005). New projects include
Public Feelings and Affective Difference and The Unconscious of Age.

Patrick Keating is an assistant professor in the Department
of Communication at Trinity University, where he teaches courses in
film and media studies. He is the author of Hollywood Lighting from
the Silent Era to Film Noir (2009). In addition to his research on the
history of cinematography, he has written articles about cinematic
realism, the film theory of Pasolini, and the structure of Hollywood
narrative.

Jihoon Kim is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Cinema Studies at New York University, where he is currently working
on a dissertation entitled “Relational Images: Moving Images in the
Age of Media Exchange.” His essay “The Post-Medium Condition
and the Explosion of Cinema” recently appeared in the fiftieth
anniversary issue of Screen, and other articles on Stan Douglas and


Contributors

contemporary Korean cinema will be published in The Place of
the Moving Image (forthcoming) and Storytelling in World Cinema

(forthcoming).

Adam Lowenstein is associate professor of English and film
studies at the University of Pittsburgh. He is the author of Shocking
Representation: Historical Trauma, National Cinema, and the Modern
Horror Film (2005) as well as essays in Cinema Journal, Critical
Quarterly, Post Script, and in anthologies such as Hitchcock: Past and
Future (2004). Among his current projects is a book concerning the
intersections between cinematic spectatorship, surrealism, and the
age of new media.
Jean Ma is an assistant professor in the Department of Art and Art
History at Stanford University, where she teaches in the film and
media studies program. She is coeditor of Still Moving: Between Cinema and Photography (2008), an anthology that brings together writings by film scholars, art historians, filmmakers, and artists on the
intersection and overlap of photography and film. Her work has
appeared in Post Script and Grey Room. She is currently working on a
manuscript on contemporary Chinese-language art cinema entitled
Melancholy Drift: Marking Time in Chinese Cinema.

Brian Price teaches at Oklahoma State University. He is author
of Neither God nor Master: Robert Bresson and the Modalities of Revolt
(2010) and co-editor of Color, the Film Reader (2006) and On Michael
Haneke (2010), as well as the journal World Picture.

Angelo Restivo is associate professor and graduate director in
the moving image studies program at Georgia State University. He is
the author of The Cinema of Economic Miracles: Visuality and Modernization in the Italian Art Film (2002). His current book project explores
global cartographies in the art cinema since 1960.

John David Rhodes is author of Stupendous, Miserable City:
Pasolini’s Rome (2007), a founding co-editor of the journal World Picture, and the co-editor of two forthcoming collections: On Michael

Haneke (with Brian Price) and The Place of the Moving Image (with Elena
Gorfinkel). His essays have appeared in Modernism/Modernity, Log,
Framework, and Film History. He teaches at the University of Sussex.
Philip Rosen is Professor of Modern Culture and Media at
Brown University. He has published widely on the history and theory
of cinema and culture. Among his publications is Change Mummified:
Cinema, Historicity, Theory (2001).

xxiii


xxiv Contributors

Maria San Filippo is a graduate of UCLA’s doctoral program
in cinema and media studies and is the Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in
Cinema and Media Studies at Wellesley College, 2008 to 2010. Her
articles and reviews have been published in Cineaste, English Language
Notes, Film History, Journal of Bisexuality, Scope, Senses of Cinema, and
Quarterly Review of Film and Video. Currently she is completing a book
titled The B Word: Bisexuality in Contemporary Film and Television.