Cinema's Bodily Illusions

Scott C. Richmond is assistant professor of cinema and digital media in the Cinema Studies Institute at the University of Toronto.

出版者:University of Minnesota Press

作者:Scott C. Richmond

页数:264

出版时间:2016-10-15

价格:USD 30.00

装帧:Paperback

isbn号码:9780816690992

图书标签:身體—影像身体-影像身体哲学theoryphenomenologyfilmstudiescognitive

承接 住宅 自建房 室内改造 装修设计 免费咨询 QQ：624617358 一级注册建筑师 亲自为您回答、经验丰富，价格亲民。无论项目大小，都全力服务。期待合作，欢迎咨询！QQ：624617358

Do contemporary big-budget blockbuster films like Gravity move something in us that is fundamentally the same as what avant-garde and experimental films have done for more than a century? In a powerful challenge to mainstream film theory, Cinema’s Bodily Illusions demonstrates that this is the case.

Scott C. Richmond bridges genres and periods by focusing, most palpably, on cinema’s power to evoke illusions: feeling like you’re flying through space, experiencing 3D without glasses, or even hallucinating. He argues that cinema is, first and foremost, a technology to modulate perception. He presents a theory of cinema as a proprioceptive technology: cinema becomes art by modulating viewers’ embodied sense of space. It works primarily not at the level of the intellect but at the level of the body. Richmond develops his theory through examples of direct perceptual illusion in cinema: hallucinatory flicker phenomena in Tony Conrad’s The Flicker, eerie depth effects in Marcel Duchamp’s Anémic Cinéma, the illusion of bodily movement through onscreen space in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001, Godfrey Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi, and Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity. In doing so he combines insights from Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception and James J. Gibson’s ecological approach to perception. The result is his distinctive ecological phenomenology, which allows us to refocus on the cinema’s perceptual, rather than representational, power.

Arguing against modernist habits of mind in film theory and aesthetics, and the attendant proclamations of cinema’s death or irrelevance, Richmond demonstrates that cinema’s proprioceptive aesthetics make it an urgent site of contemporary inquiry.

用户评价

3.5 Fantastic analysis of Cavellian modernism and its relationship to skepticism. I'm not convinced by the dichotomy between the body and modernism-- the body as zone of indetermination, modernism as critical demystification. His characterization of technics and cinema is very problematic. The result of too much Stiegler, not enough Leroi-Gourhan.

3.5 Fantastic analysis of Cavellian modernism and its relationship to skepticism. I'm not convinced by the dichotomy between the body and modernism-- the body as zone of indetermination, modernism as critical demystification. His characterization of technics and cinema is very problematic. The result of too much Stiegler, not enough Leroi-Gourhan.

3.5 Fantastic analysis of Cavellian modernism and its relationship to skepticism. I'm not convinced by the dichotomy between the body and modernism-- the body as zone of indetermination, modernism as critical demystification. His characterization of technics and cinema is very problematic. The result of too much Stiegler, not enough Leroi-Gourhan.

3.5 Fantastic analysis of Cavellian modernism and its relationship to skepticism. I'm not convinced by the dichotomy between the body and modernism-- the body as zone of indetermination, modernism as critical demystification. His characterization of technics and cinema is very problematic. The result of too much Stiegler, not enough Leroi-Gourhan.

3.5 Fantastic analysis of Cavellian modernism and its relationship to skepticism. I'm not convinced by the dichotomy between the body and modernism-- the body as zone of indetermination, modernism as critical demystification. His characterization of technics and cinema is very problematic. The result of too much Stiegler, not enough Leroi-Gourhan.