![]() ![]() These representations (especially, effeminate men) were frequent in films directed by Juan de Orduña, a homosexual filmmaker integrated. However, some representational cracks existed and some queer characters (sissies, transvestites, mannish women) were visible, almost always as comic figures. We emphasize the epistemic value of intermediality: its capacity to generate feelings and revelations about the world.ĭuring the 1940s, Francoist censorship troubled and banned the representation of homosexuality in cinema. We attempt to map a wider area where "an affective turn" of intermediality studies can be conceived and where a focus on affects and sensations can yield a better understanding of the ways in which intermediality "works". a kind of grammar), but – drawing on phenomenology and various philosophical sources – as a "poetics", an art of in-betweenness, or as a "sensual excess", "as a perceivable figure of media difference which disturbs the order of the discourse" (Joachim Paech). We see this as a necessary and logical extension of the line of thinking that conceives intermediality not in semiotic terms, as a set of abstract categories and combinations (i.e. ![]() This research aims to accomplish a complex investigation into what we propose to term "affective intermediality". The essay focuses in particular on ‘non-cinematic’ works by Philippine director Khavn de la Cruz and American.Įxploratory Research Project supported by a grant of the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CNCS - UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P-1297, within PNCDI III. ![]() On a related note, increasing numbers of filmmakers actively are moving away from feature filmmaking, e.g. This question is of redoubled importance in an age of technological change: not only are nearly all films now not made using the traditional equipment of filmmaking (analogue cameras, linear editing systems, polyester film stock), but nor do they get exhibited in traditional theatrical venues (instead circulating on DVD and related formats, and online). Instead of Andre Bazin's founding question regarding what is cinema, therefore, this essay asks what cinema is not – and why. The term points to that which is excluded from cinema, and accordingly I seek to explore the various reasons for these exclusions, in particular the political/ideological ones, together with how these exclusions are manifested on an aesthetic level. In this article I propose the concept of ‘non-cinema’. Privileged examples will be drawn from various moments in film. This article will investigate the particular impurities of cinema that drive it beyond the specificities of the medium and into the realm of the other arts and the reality of life itself. Resonating with Bazin and his defence of ‘impure cinema’, that is, of cinema's interbreeding with other arts, Badiou seems to agree with him also in identifying the uncinematic as the location of the Real. In his Handbook of Inaesthetics, Badiou embraces a similar idea, by describing cinema as an ‘impure circulation’ that incorporates the other arts. Similarly, Lyotard defended an ‘acinema’, which rather than selecting and excluding movements through editing, accepts what is ‘fortuitous, dirty, confused, unclear, poorly framed, overexposed’. Adorno, for example, defined an ‘uncinematic’ element in the negation of movement in modern cinema, ‘which constitutes its artistic character’. Philosophy has repeatedly denied cinema in order to grant it artistic status. The paper explores the ways in which the filmmaker’s tactics become powerful gestures of “politicized immediacy” (Naficy 2001, 6) that call for the (inter)medial as an also indispensably political act ((Schröter 2010). His artisanal and secret use of the camera in deterritorialized conditions and extreme limitations as regards profilmic space – house arrest, fake taxi interior – gives way for multilayered reflexivity, incorporating non-actorial presence, performative self-filming and theatricality as subversive gestures, with a special emphasis on the off-screen and remediated video-orality performed in front of, or directly addressed to the camera. ![]() Panahi’s overtly confrontational (non-)cinematic discourse is an eminent example of “accented cinema” (Naficy 2001). The paper addresses the issue of non-cinema, pertaining to those instances of cinematic “impurity” in which “the medium disregards its own limits in order to politically interfere with the other arts and life itself” (Nagib 2016, 132). In close intratextual connection with earlier pieces of Jafar Panahi’s oeuvre, pre-eminently The Mirror ( Ayneh, 1997) and Offside (2006), his recent films made in illegality, including This Is Not a Film ( In film nist, Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, 2011), Closed Curtain ( Pardeh, Jafar Panahi and Kambuzia Partovi, 2013) and Taxi Tehran (Jafar Panahi, 2015), reformulate the relationship between cinema and the “real,” defying the limitations of filmmaking in astounding ways. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |