[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
., Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).The emphasis on optimal attention guiding and hypothesis formation grounds itself in cognitive psychology and neoformalist poetics; see, for instance, Bordwell, Staiger, and Thompson, Classical Hollywood Cinema, 7–9, 58–59; Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); and Noel Carroll, Theorizing the Moving Image (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).41.The trope is pervasive in Kluge’s writings, interviews, and films; see, for instance, interview by Ulrich Gregor, in Herzog, Kluge, Straub, ed.Peter W.Jensen and Wolfram Schütte (Munich: Hanser, 1976), 158; also see Kluge, “On Film and the Public Sphere,” ed.and trans.Miriam B.Hansen and Thomas Y.Levin, New German Critique 24–25 (Fall– Winter 1981–82): 206–20, esp.208–10.42.Gunning, “An Aesthetic of Astonishment; also see Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator, and the Avant-Garde,” Wide Angle 8.3–4 (1986): 63–70.43.See, for example, “Filmvorführung im Polizeipräsidium,” FZ, 16 May 1925, in W 6.1:142–43.On early nonfiction film (in particular the “rocks and waves” phenomenon), see Daan Hertogs and Nico de Klerk, eds., Nonfiction Films from the Teens (Amsterdam: Netherlands Filmmuseum, 1994), and Tom Gunning, “Before Documentary: Early Nonfiction Films and the ‘View’ Aesthetic,” in Uncharted Territory: Essays on Early Nonfiction Film, eds.Hertogs and de Klerk (Amsterdam: Netherlands Filmmuseum, 1997); also see Jennifer Peterson, Education in the School of Dreams: Travelogues and Early Non-fiction Film (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2010).44.“Der Kaufmann von Venedig”; for other examples, see “Ägypten im Film,” FZ, 27 Sept.1924, in W 6.1:91; “Helden des Sports und der Liebe,” FZ, 25 Oct.1924, in W 6.1:99; “Ein Hochgebirgsfilm,” FZ, 20 March 1926, in W 6.1:219–21.45.From Caligari to Hitler, 112.On the genre of the mountain film, see Eric Rentschler, “Mountains and Modernity: Relocating the Bergfilm,” New German Critique 51 (Fall 1990): 137–61.46.“Berge, Wolken, Menschen,” FZ, 9 April 1925, in W 6.1:132–33.In the same category, see Kracauer’s enthusiasm for slow-motion shots of body movements (“marvelous configuration of limbs unveil themselves in this snail’s walk through time”) in Wege zur Kraft und Schönheit (FZ, 21 May 1925, in W 6.1:143–46), a film he was to pan sarcastically a year later (FZ, 5 Aug.1926, in W 6.1:253–55).47.On the distinction—and dialectic—between things and objects, see Bill Brown, “Thing Theory,” intr.to Things, ed.Brown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 1–22.On Kracauer and things, see Lesley Stern, “ ‘Paths That Wind through the Thicket of Things,’ ” in ibid., 317–54.48.Kracauer’s evocative ekphrases of the appearance of things in films echo Hofmannsthal’s poetic account of the ordinary things and environments of childhood memory and waking dreams that cinema conjures up from its “chest with magical junk.” Hugo von Hofmannsthal, “The Substitute for Dreams” (1921), trans.Lance W.Garmer, in McCormick and Guenther-Pal, German Essays on Film, 55.49.“Niddy Impekoven im Film,” see above, n.30.50.“Thérèse Raquin,” FZ, 29 March 1928, in W 6.2:54.51.Walter Benjamin, “Reply to Oscar A.H.Schmitz” (1927), in SW 2:18; GS 2:753.Benjamin praises Kracauer’s own writings for their “great inventorying of the petty bourgeois [mittelständischen] world” in its demise through an “ ‘affectionate’ description” of the things that are its legacy.See letters to Kracauer, 20 April and 17 June 1926, in Walter Benjamin, Briefe an Siegfried Kracauer: Mit vier Briefen von Siegfried Kracauer an Walter Benjamin, ed.Theodor W.Adorno Archiv (Marbach a.N.: DLA, 1987), 17, 24.52.See Béla Balázs, Early Film Theory: Visible Man and the Spirit of Film, trans.Rodney Livingstone (Oxford and New York: Berghahn, 2010); also see Gertrud Koch, “Béla Balázs: The Physiognomy of Things,” New German Critique 40 (Winter 1987): 167–77; Jean Epstein, “Magnification,” and other writings, trans.Stuart Liebman, in French Film Theory and Criticism, 1907–1939, vol.1, ed.Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); also see Liebman, “Jean Epstein’s Early Film Theory, 1920–1922” (PhD dissertation, New York University, 1980).53.In his essay on Rodin, Simmel speaks of modern art as an “animated mirror”; see Georg Simmel, “Rodin,” in Philosophische Kultur: Über das Abenteuer; die Geschlechter und die Krise der Moderne (1911, 1923; Berlin: Wagenbach, 1983), 151–65; also see Koch, “Balázs,” 170, 174.54.Kracauer and Adorno’s friendship, with all its intensities and ambivalences, is documented in their remarkable lifelong correspondence; see Theodor W.Adorno and Siegfried Kracauer, Briefwechsel, 1923–1966 (AKB), ed.Wolfgang Schopf (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2008).Also see Martin Jay, “Adorno and Kracauer: Notes on a Troubled Friendship,” in Permanent Exiles, 217–36.55.Theodor W.Adorno, “The Curious Realist: On Siegfried Kracauer” (1964), in Notes to Literature, trans.Shierry Weber Nicholsen, vol.2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 75; GS 11:408.56.On the changed status of “things” in modernity, see Bill Brown, “The Secret Life of Things (Virginia Woolf and the Matter of Modernism),” Modernism/Modernity 6 (April 1999): 1–28.57.Georges Duhamel, Scènes de la vie future (Paris, 1930), 52, quoted in Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility: Third Version,” in SW 4:119.58.Named after the British physiologist Dr.William Carpenter (1813–85); see his Principles of Mental Physiology, with Their Applications to the Training and Discipline of the Mind, and the Study of Morbid Conditions (New York: Appleton & Co., 1878).Also see below, ch.5, in connection with Benjamin’s concept of “innervation.”59.Martin Jay, “Experience without a Subject: Walter Benjamin and the Novel” (1993), in Cultural Semantics: Keywords of Our Time (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998), 47–61.60.For another, strong example of the shift to the second person singular, see “Der verbotene Blick” (“The Forbidden Gaze”), FZ, 9 April 1925, in S 5.1:298–99.61.Kracauer’s reservations against History and Class Consciousness had to do with, among other things, the way that any empirical analysis of capitalist modernization was preempted by a Hegelian concept of totality; see his letter to Ernst Bloch, 27 May 1926, in Bloch, Briefe, 1903–1975, ed.Karola Bloch et al.(Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1985), 1:273; also see below, ch.2.On the relation between reification and totality, see Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984).62.Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans.Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997), especially 83–110.63 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]