UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Beautifully Mundane:

A Systematic Study of Subjective Experience

by

Emily Jeanne Mody

AN HONOURS THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS HONOURS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE FILM STUDIES PROGRAM

CALGARY, ALBERTA

APRIL 12, 2013

© Emily Jeanne Mody 2013

Mody ii

Abstract This thesis will examine the role of subjective experience in film studies. In

particular, this thesis will look at Christian Keathley and his text entitled Cinephilia and

History or the Wind in the Trees that discusses how the experience of cinephiliac

moments can be utilized to garner an objective understanding of film history. Subjective

experience is deemphasized in academic institutions because it often does not allow for a

concretized methodology. This thesis will compare the ideas that Keathley presents in

contrast to other theorists who oppose him. The findings will demonstrate that a

systematic approach to film analysis needs to emphasize the passion that made cinephiles

love film in the first place. The utilization of subjective experience can demonstrate

systematic, historical insights. Keathley’s argument attempts to locate an alternative path

to historical analysis. This methodology utilizes the subjective experience of the viewer

in order to pinpoint an objective understanding of film history.

Mody iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Cinephiliac Moment ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Breaking Down The Chapters: Epstein, Keathley, Bordwell, and 500 Days of Summer ...... 4

1.2.1 Epstein ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Keathley ................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Bordwell ................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.4 500 Days of Summer ............................................................................................................................ 9

Chapter 2: Following Intuition ............................................................................................. 10 2.1 Interpretation versus Criticism .................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Interpretation Into Objective Study ............................................................................................ 14 2.3 The Importance of Critical Study? .............................................................................................. 18

Chapter 3: Magic and The Cinephiliac Spirit ................................................................... 21 3.1 Magnifying Experience ................................................................................................................ 21 3.2 Photogénie and Nosferatu ............................................................................................................ 24

Chapter 4: Seemingly Breathless .......................................................................................... 34 4.1 Panoramic Perception and the Ability to Notice ....................................................................... 36 4.2 The Stimulus Shield ...................................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 5: 500 Days of Summer .......................................................................................... 43

Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................................................... 48

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................. 49

Mody 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Many film historians have emphasized an institutional model for studying

cinematic history.1 This model emphasizes a critical approach to historical analysis that

does not allow for recognition of cinephilia in an academic context. This has been

extremely useful in terms of learning about film history in an objective and efficient way.

Some critics, however, such as Susan Sontag, David Denby, and Stanley Kauffman argue

that the enjoyment of cinema has been laid aside for these objective understandings.2 For

the purposes of this thesis, a cinephile will be defined as an individual who loves film and

who is also knowledgeable about cinema. This is distinctive from a film scholar who

does not necessarily need to maintain a passion for film in order to study it. In

contemporary academia one does not have to be a cinephile in order to be a film scholar,

however, this is an unfortunate loss. Keathley emphasizes another way to view and

understand film history in his text entitled, Cinephilia and History or The Wind In The

Trees. He proposes the importance of the subjective experience of the viewer through

which one would then gain an objective understanding of film history. When Keathley

discusses the notion of the subjective experience of the viewer, he contends that the

viewer’s experience of the film should guide an understanding of history. This opposes

the traditional understanding that demonstrates a historical understanding that is deemed

1 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees, (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indian University Press, 2005). 2. 2 Christian Keathley. Cinephilia and History, 2-3.

Mody 2

important by an external source. Keathley considers the cinephiliac moment a natural

extension of the subjective experience of the cinephile.3

1.1 The Cinephiliac Moment

The understanding of the cinephiliac moment can be broken down into two terms,

the first being “cinephiliac.” This term comes from the word cinephile. In “Traces That

Resemble Us: Godard’s Passion”, Jean-Louis Leutrat describes what is meant when he

utilizes the term cinephile. Leutrat states that the “cinephile joins together the spirit of the

collector and the competence of the connoisseur, but a connoisseur who would only

collect within his memory.”4 According to Leutrat, a cinephile is an individual who

emphasizes both passionate enjoyment and intellectual pursuit in order to maintain a

greater understanding of their craft. It is through this definition that Keathley’s argument

of the cinephile will be framed and in turn, his argument for the cinephiliac moment. The

second term in Keathley’s conceptualization is “moment”. Keathley utilizes this term to

imply an understanding of an experience. This term also demonstrates that this

experience can be instantaneous, that although it can be identified within several

instances the effect only lasts for seconds at the most. In “Through the Glass Darkly:

Cinephilia Reconsidered,” Paul Willemen demonstrates what is meant by the notion

cinephiliac moment. He states that:

… in the varied body of critical writings associated with cinephilia, there exists a recurring preoccupation with an element of the cinematic experience ‘which resists, which escapes existing networks of critical discourse and theoretical frameworks.’ Noel King clarifies that this ‘something’ emerges in

3 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees, (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indian University Press, 2005), 30 4Jean-Louis Leutrat, “Traces That Resemble Us: Godard’s Passion,” Sub-Stance 51, no. 3 (1986): 36.

Mody 3

the cinephile’s ‘fetishising of a particular moment, the isolating of a crystallisingly expressive detail’ in the film image.5

The expressive detail is particularly potent in the mind of a cinephile, and because of this,

Keathley believes that it can be used in a very specific way to understand film history.

Keathley states that what “is needed today is to reintroduce cinema into historical

discipline, to recover the materiality of the source, even the pleasure of the gaze.”6

Keathley, in turn, is responding to the many theorists who have let their passionate

experience with cinema fall by the wayside while they emphasize the belief that objective

methodology is necessary to concretize cinematic understanding.

Keathley offers a different way to formulate methodology to maintain both the

enjoyment that cinephiles emphasize as well as the concretized understanding that

particular scholars emphasize before anything else. Keathley explores a history of film

based on personal enjoyment and understanding of films. He investigates the fact that,

too often cinephiles are isolated from film history because they have little or no

connection to the time period in which they are studying.

In theories of film experience many scholars have argued that they need to

maintain a formalized history in order to gain a structured understanding of film studies.

This research project will investigate this topic to show that the systematic approach to

film analysis needs to emphasize the passion that made cinephiles love film in the first

5 Paul Willemen, “Through the Glass Darkly: Cinephilia Reconsiderd,” in Looks and Frictions (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 231. 6 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indian University Press, 2005), 4.

Mody 4

place. This thesis will utilize three main theorists, Jean Epstein7, Christian Keathley8, and

David Bordwell9 in tandem with the discussion of three films, Nosferatu10, Breathless11,

and (500) Days of Summer12, looking particularly closely at their respective time periods.

This thesis will also explore how the experiences of these films relate to what the

theorists have to say about that historical period. Without emphasizing the experience of

the viewer something gets left behind. Cinephiles lose the chance to look at alternative

points of entry into their analysis. Keathley suggests that by emphasizing the subjective

experience of the viewer, cinephiles can utilize a new means of understanding film

studies. Keathley argues that this process will, indeed, be more useful than any

methodology that has come before it.

1.2 Breaking Down The Chapters: Epstein, Keathley, Bordwell, and 500 Days of Summer

1.2.1 Epstein

Jean Epstein was a film theorist from the 1920’s who also recognized the

importance of individual experience within the cinema. In his article, entitled

“Magnification and Other Writings,” Epstein theorizes the importance of American

close-ups. He also discusses the importance of movement in film. Epstein discusses a

7 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 235-240. Web. 27 April 2012. 8 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indian University Press, 2005). 9 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989). 10 Nosferatu. Dir. F.W. Murnau. (1922; Weimar Republic: Film Arts Guild, 2007), DVD. 11 A bout de soufflé. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard. (1960; France: Rialto Pictures, 2010), DVD. 12 (500) Days of Summer. Dir. Marc Webb. (2009; United States: Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2009), DVD.

Mody 5

concept known as “photogénie”. This term is utilized to describe what is cinematically

enhanced through the process of filming.13 Epstein states that he has “never seen an

entire minute of pure photogénie. Therefore… the photogenic is like a spark that appears

in fits and starts.”14 Epstein’s statement demonstrates that his experience of photogénie is

very similar to how Keathley understands cinephiliac spectatorship.

Epstein’s relationship to Nosferatu is historical in nature but it is also appropriate

to utilize in the discussion of his theories. Nosferatu is a silent German Expressionist film

from the 1920’s directed by F.W. Murnau. Nosferatu will provide a means of

illuminating Epstein’s discussion of photogénie. The discussion of the 1920’s will allow

for a comparison of the cinephiliac moment and how this concept differs in contemporary

understanding. In turn, this section will demonstrate how the experience of the

cinephiliac moment is considered in this period. It will also demonstrate why it is

important to emphasize the subjective experience of the viewer instead of a solely

objective understanding toward film history. This is also going to be explored in the

following chapter on Keathley with his discussion of panoramic perception.

1.2.2 Keathley

The utilization of the film Breathless will illuminate Keathley’s notion of

“panoramic perception.” Keathley describes panoramic perception as an alternative

means of viewing that cinephiles possess. He describes this viewing experience as being

able to maintain an understanding of the narrative while also identifying particular details

13 Epstein, in Richard Abel, French Film Theory and Criticism, 1907-1939. Volume 1, 1907-1929. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1988a, pp. 314. 14 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 236.

Mody 6

that interest the cinephile on an individual basis. In the 1960’s, film criticism underwent

the academic shift that ultimately led to a turn away from cinematic pleasure. Before the

academic shift occurred there was also a period of time devoted to auteur writing. The

Cahiers du Cinéma undertook this writing. The Cahiers du Cinéma greatly affected how

Keathley formulated his thoughts about alternative histories. The analysis of how the

experience of cinephiliac moments has changed in the academic context will be very

important in relation to the subjective experience of the cinephile. The exploration of this

time period will allow this thesis to explore how the subjective experience of the

cinephile came to be deemphasized and how it can, in turn, be emphasized again.

1.2.3 Bordwell

Bordwell’s writing provides a contrasting viewpoint to Keathley. In particular,

Bordwell does not believe that the utilization of subjective experience is a useful means

of gaining an understanding from cinematic studies. Bordwell argues that the

interpretative practices that had been maintained in cinema studies were problematic.

Bordwell suggests that the ability to understand films in the way that Keathley or Epstein

suggests was a good way to think about the cinema before film studies became

institutionalized. He demonstrates that cinephiles have come to a time in which all of the

myths and inspiration that the cinema had inspired in the past no longer has a place in an

academic institution. Bordwell argues that film scholars must emphasize a critical

methodology of cinematic studies. Film scholars must not accept interpretative models

that have never been tested or questioned before. They, instead, must emphasize a critical

methodology to overcome these common interpretative ideas. The turn away from

pleasure is an important aspect of this critical methodology. Instead of gaining enjoyment

Mody 7

from this interpretative practice, he argues that film scholars must challenge it, for this is

the only way that they will become better scholars. This project will utilize Bordwell’s

theories to juxtapose against Keathley’s.15

Keathley presents opposition to Laura Mulvey as well. Mulvey states in her essay,

“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” that:

…Analyzing pleasure, or beauty, destroys it. That is the intention of this article. The satisfaction and reinforcement of the ego that represent the high point of film history hitherto must be attacked. Not in the favour of a reconstructed new pleasure, which cannot exist in the abstract, nor of intellectualized unpleasure, but to make way for a total negation of the ease and plenitude of the narrative fiction film. The alternative is the thrill that comes from leaving the past behind without rejecting it, transcending outworn or oppressive forms, or daring to break with normal pleasurable expectations in order to conceive a new language of desire.16

Mulvey argues that cinephiles need a radical reinterpretation of narrative cinema in order

to breakdown the pleasure that they receive from the cinema. She demonstrates this

understanding through her belief that cinema itself, has to be entirely reconstructed.

Mulvey’s argument does not stem from a place of academic frustration, much like

Bordwell’s does but rather, a frustration with the limits of equality. Mulvey believed that

the pleasure the spectator receives from the cinema is directly related to the oppression

that women face. In turn, Mulvey would rather see a complete eradication of the narrative

film style that cinemagoers have today. It is interesting, however, when one looks at her

statement closer. For Mulvey the experience of pleasure is undeniably tied to exploiting

others. She believes that the current mode of receiving pleasure is harmful and therefore

she speaks of the thrill that comes from leaving the current mode behind and in turn

15 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989). 16 Laura Mulvey. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Film Theory & Criticism. Seventh Edition. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). 713.

Mody 8

making way for a new language of desire through which film scholars can experience the

cinema. Therefore, according to Mulvey, if this de-emphasization of pleasure means a

complete breakdown of how cinephiles understand and formulate pleasure today, then

this is how it must be.

Keathley, however, demonstrates that it is the pleasurable experience with the

cinema that needs to be emphasized further in historical discourse. Keathley states in his

text:

…Slyvia Harvey remarked that the ideological/semiotic project’s ‘extreme mistrust of the fruits of the camera’s labors’ has resulted in a secularism that has no place for the cinephile’s belief in a ‘sense of the special, even “sacred” nature of the photographic image.’ Though she openly acknowledges that we cannot return to some supposedly Edenic world before the linguistic turn (nor should we want to), she nevertheless identifies it as ‘one of the challenges of current secular criticism to reconstruct or re-invent a sense of the sacred and the immortal, and perhaps to find other words than these to refer to the constant presence of the extraordinary within the ordinary, to foreground significance which is present without words’-precisely the recovery of some sense of the cinephilic within cinema studies. This book attempts to do just that.17

In this quotation, Keathley identifies that the problem with cinema studies today is the

complete disregard for the ‘magic’ that cinema has over individuals who are passionate

about it. Keathley demonstrates that it is not the oppression but rather the immortal we

need to emphasize in film history and this can only be done through the experience of

cinephiliac moments. Keathley does not contend that the pleasure derived from the

cinephiliac moment must be a result of narrative films but rather a pleasurable experience

of the cinephile with the medium. Keathley believes that without the emphasis of the

cinephiliac moment something is left behind that could potentially be very useful.

17 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indian University Press, 2005), 28.

Mody 9

1.2.4 500 Days of Summer

This thesis will be concluded with a discussion of 500 Days of Summer, particularly

how contemporary scholars understand film history and in turn, the cinephiliac moment.

This thesis will explore how the experience of the cinephiliac moment among

contemporary cinephiles differs from spectators who experienced it in earlier historical

contexts. In turn, this paper will explore the importance of emphasizing the subjective

experience of the viewer in contemporary cinema.

It is still possible to have an experience of a cinephiliac moment as a contemporary

cinephile, but with that being said, there have been significant changes in how film

history has been taught and understood. Keathley contends that the cinephile must turn

inwards to determine what they, as individuals particularly love about film. Once the

spectator is able to pinpoint the moment or moments that they love about the film then

they are able to turn that experience into an objective understanding of film history.

Through participating in this practice and emphasizing the passion that made cinephiles

love film in the first place, utilizing subjective experience will ultimately lead to a much

better understanding of film history.

Mody 10

Chapter 2: Following Intuition

There are many ways in which film scholars can choose to look at and gain

meaning from film. Some scholars emphasize interpretative practices while others argue

that film scholars should utilize a concretized methodology to gain meaning. In his book,

Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema, David

Bordwell demonstrates that the processes of the institution have mainly dictated the

interpretative practices of contemporary cinematic studies.18 Bordwell looks at two

particular approaches to interpretation in cinematic studies, that of thematic explication

and symptomatic reading. In turn, he argues that these two means of interpretation share

foundational similarities. It is through this understanding that Bordwell claims that it is

the institution that shapes film scholars’ ability to be critical and in turn, it should not

surprise them that these two modes are fundamentally similar. Bordwell contends that

interpretation can be somewhat critiqued and perhaps should not be at the centre of

critical practice in film studies. Instead, Bordwell offers already present alternatives to an

interpretation-driven criticism. He argues that we should utilize a systematized

methodology, more specifically a historical poetics, to concretize our study of films.

The discussion of pleasure among cinematic scholars has been prevalent for many

years. In particular, Laura Mulvey characterizes the term pleasure in her text entitled

“Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” She deprecates the personal accounts of the

cinema that came from early writers such as Epstein. She argues that cinematic staging

and camera work have led to the objectification of women. In turn, she asserts that a

18 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989).

Mody 11

radical break away from narrative cinema is necessary in order to destroy anything

pleasurable about film. I present Laura Mulvey here as a contextualizing point for the

discussion of pleasure that I will pose between Bordwell and Keathley.

2.1 Interpretation versus Criticism

In his book entitled Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees, Keathley

emphasizes an interpretive formulation for film studies through the utilization of

subjective experience to gain a better understanding of film history. He argues that it is

more beneficial to utilize the individual’s interpretation to determine meaning from the

film and in turn, from cinematic history. In this sense, Keathley somewhat agrees with

Bordwell’s notion that the institution has dictated how film scholars interpret and what

they find important. Bordwell contends that film scholars must avert from the confining

semantic fields that film studies has created for itself. However, Keathley’s argument

does not suggest that film scholars turn away from these practices but rather that film

scholars emphasize interpretative understandings of film history. He explains: “the

historian can easily become so focused on the historical discourse in front of him that he

fails to see the other discourse of history that is passing immediately behind, showing

through only intermittently, in flashes.”19 Instead of studying what is already known,

Keathley hopes to inspire film scholars to find new points of entry into the cinematic

historical discipline. This would allow for an interpretative practice that is potentially

more useful academically then the practices that have come before it.

19 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indian University Press, 2005), 133.

Mody 12

Bordwell’s denunciation of interpretation stems from his disagreement with how

film scholars have utilized the academic discipline to garner meaning. He argues that:

The critical institution – journalistic reviewing, essayistic writing, or academic criticism – defines the grounds and bounds of interpretive activity, the direction of analogical thinking, the proper goals, the permissible solutions, and the authority that can validate the interpretations produced by ordinary criticism.20

This quotation illuminates Bordwell’s disillusionment with interpretation driven study.

Bordwell contends that these particular institutional practices are ultimately misguided.

The reason, argued by Bordwell, that film scholars have not embraced other methods of

reading a film would be because they are discouraged to stray from the specific

institutional practices that film scholarship embraces. Keathley argues a similar point in

his text. He emphasizes that film scholars must highlight his own ideas of interpretation

to break away from the institutional practices that have confined film scholarship.

However, Bordwell would perhaps argue that Keathley’s methodology is just a guise, a

manipulation to make film scholars believe that they are achieving something different

when in actuality they are doing exactly as the institution wants. Bordwell argues that

film scholars are maintaining the status quo by continuing to emphasize interpretative

practices that are very similar if not, the same as those that have come before them.

Keathley, however, challenges this notion put forth by Bordwell. Although, he also does

not contend that film scholars should maintain the practices that they have been utilizing

to study film, he does not wish to see a “dislocation of interpretation.”21 Keathley asserts

20 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989). 32. 21 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. 274.

Mody 13

that subjective experience is the means through which film studies can rejuvenate itself.

Keathley states:

But there is more to this project than cinephilia as a historical object of study. The goal is also to recover for the present some sense of the excitement, the ebullient cinephilic spirit-or better yet, cinephiliac spirit, with that adjectival form’s connotation of a “disorder”-that marked so much writing about the movies during these years. “What is needed today,” de Baecque and Fremaux argue, “is to reintroduce cinema into historical discipline, to recover the materiality of the source, even the pleasure of the gaze.” During the great period of cinephilia, the writing that emerged from journals like Cahiers was not just history or criticism, they explain, but “a creative act of substitution no less important than the films themselves.” As cinema studies became institutionalized, that cinephilic spirit was willfully set aside, and then ultimately misplaced.22

The negation of interpretation functions as perhaps the most prominent and precarious

aspect of Bordwell’s argument. As Keathley argues in the quotation above, something is

entirely left behind when film scholars turn away from their personal connection to the

films that they watch and enjoy. Keathley argues that there is something significant to be

said about why cinephiles enjoy the particular moments of films that they do. It is

important that film scholars remember where film writing came from originally and how

it was originally inspired, not by the scholarship of today but instead by individuals who

loved to write about the cinema. The interpretation of the individual scholar is what can

bring the original experience of writing about film to the forefront once again. Keathley

suggests that when film scholars study the cinema, they should focus on the particular

moments that they find personally enjoyable. In turn, they could transform this

experience into an alternative history that is both objective and systematically sound.

Bordwell, however, does not agree with Keathley’s focus. He argues that interpretative

practice is the problem with cinema studies today because it does not allow for critical

22 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 3-4.

Mody 14

discourse. Bordwell discusses one of the problems with interpretation in his text. He

states:

… the critic uses two main rules of thumb. The first takes into account the film’s specificity (though not its uniqueness): the semantic fields should have a plausible fit with the cues found in the film. Second, they should cover the entire film. The modern academic interpretive institution assumes that critics should seek to account for the text as a whole (even if it is conceived as a contradictory whole). Using these two guidelines, the critic can select and combine semantic fields so as to produce meanings pitched as acceptable levels of delicacy. The norm of specificity and totality thus often trade away logical validity for the sake of particularity. Once more, for even the “theory”-grounded critic, the niceties of theoretical consistency take a backseat to heuristic devices that yield institutionally approved results.23

Bordwell demonstrates his frustration with current critical academic discourse arguing

that above all, the film scholar has become overshadowed by the need for the institution

to approve of the results found. This in actuality may be very true, after all, if most

people are going to dismiss a piece of writing because it does not maintain the

institutional mandate than one would not stray from that discourse. Bordwell contends

that a historical poetics would allow for the scholar to have more freedom through its

extensive sphere of research.

2.2 Interpretation Into Objective Study

Bordwell’s use of language suggests a marked difference between him and

Keathley. Bordwell refers to the film scholar as above all, a student who is meant to draw

conclusions from a film in tandem with “a wide range of documents.”24 This would also

23 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989). 107. 24 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema, 274.

Mody 15

take place with the exclusion of interpretative pleasure.25 While Keathley refers to the

film scholar as a cinephile, a term that is literally defined as “a person who loves films

and cinema.”26 This emphasizes the approach in which Bordwell and Keathley would

preferably take when writing about film. Bordwell argues that film scholars should not be

defined by the current institutional mode for how they come to interpret cinema. In fact,

film scholars probably should utilize interpretative methods very little, Bordwell argues,

because they do not maintain verifiable methods. Instead, Bordwell suggests that film

scholars formulate a historical poetics whereby film studies “can be fruitfully renewed by

a historical scholarship that seeks out the concrete and unfamiliar conditions under which

all sorts of meaning are made.”27 Whereas Keathley argues that film scholars should still

maintain an interpretative practice. Instead of pulling away from our individual

experiences with the films, film scholars should bring this to the forefront to expose an

alternative history. Keathley states:

It could be argued that the history of film historiography has been an ongoing project of locating these alternate points of entry, nearly all of which began with some individual’s experience of the movies, often in which that person watches differently, notices something, and becomes curious about what he or she sees. Thus begins the construction of a “counter-factual” history that may ultimately become part of the “real” history. Cinephiliac moments are more points of entry, clues perhaps to another history flashing through the cracks of those histories we already know. A cinephiliac history – a history developed out of these cinephiliac moments – would then be another “counter-factual history,” one that might eventually be folded into our overall conception of the forces and effect that constitute the entirety of the

25 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989), 263. 26 cinephile. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cinephile (accessed: January 22, 2013) 27 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989), 273.

Mody 16

history of cinema. This is the question that must be addressed: How might one “develop” (I use the filmic term deliberately) one of these moments so that the resulting discourse maintains and even extends the initial experience, and at the same time constitutes part of a history in that it imparts information, knowledge, and insight?… [The] critical method must be recovered but, importantly, it must not simply take the place of the former [method, which emphasizes impenetrability]: rather, the two methods must be reconciled so the resulting discourse simultaneously achieves the goals of both approaches: the production of knowledge along with (or via) and extending of the registering of effect.28 As opposed to Bordwell, Keathley suggests that film scholars can utilize a distinct

interpretative method, one that differs from the practices that have been established and

emphasized for years within film studies. Through the utilization of the subjective

experience of the cinephile, film scholars can transform this pleasurable experience with

the cinema into something that can be utilized to gain a history, which is both objectively

systematic and enjoyable. In the quotation above, Keathley argues that historical analysis

already emphasizes locating new or alternate entry points into academic understanding.

This in turn, emphasizes subjective experience because every cinephile watches films

differently and would therefore notice differently. This emphasis is key to implementing

the changes that need to be made when looking at the institutionalized study of film

history. Bordwell would argue that the point of studying films is to gain meaning from

them. Not meaning that is utilized by the individual only but meaning that in turn stems

from a methodology that can be utilized by the whole academic discipline to understand

films. Interpretation is typically not a concretized form of study so many scholars have

reservations about utilizing this technique as a means of analysis. Keathley suggests a

way for academic film scholars to both concertize interpretative practices and maintain

our pleasurable relationship with the cinema.

28 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 134-135.

Mody 17

Despite Keathley’s assertion for a methodology that combines both the production

of knowledge and the prolonging of the cinephiliac moment, he does not offer a

structured means of how to conduct this project. This methodology could be criticized for

its lack of structural form. Keathley does not propose a way to utilize cinephiliac

moments to garner a historical understanding. He rather, leaves this to the subjectivity of

the cinephile. However, this technique could also be deemed appropriate for acquiring

knowledge based on the subjective aspects of personal experience. He offers several

strategies for how one should begin to write. The cinephile must begin with the

cinephiliac anecdote. This particular moment may be guided by “nothing more

substantial than… taste,… pleasure, an emotion, laughter, surprise, a certain dread, or

some other feeling.”29 The role of personal memory is also an important consideration

when determining a cinephiliac anecdote. Keathley contends that memory allows the

cinephile to scan “panoramically beyond anything linked to plot or theme.”30 Once the

anecdote has been established, the cinephile can utilize metonymy to begin the process of

writing. This ensures that the cinephile does not “write about these things” but rather that

they “write with them or from them.”31 Keathley does not demonstrate to the cinephile

exactly how to proceed from the anecdotes that they identify, however, Keathley does

suggest that one follow their “intuition.”32 This allows for the cinephile to engage “with

29 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 137. 30 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees, 148. 31 Ibid., 141. 32 Ibid., 144.

Mody 18

his feelings as well as his processes of thought in order to learn something.”33 The

associations that result from the cinephiliac anecdote must establish meaning in “service

of the film text.”34 The cinephiliac anecdote maintains the goal of making filmic

moments relevant to personal contexts.35 This project would illuminate the alternate

points of history, which have been neglected in academia while still maintaining the

objective approach that scholars utilize to produce new knowledge.

2.3 The Importance of Critical Study?

Bordwell suggests that film scholars deemphasize the interpretive experience of

the cinephile to emphasize something new and in turn quite different from anything film

critics have seen in the academic discipline. He states:

If poetics is concerned to explain effects generated by films, it must include in its purview those effects I have been calling interpretive practices. The inferential protocols of certain modes of viewing encourage the spectator to try out implicit and symptomatic meaning “spontaneously,” as when art-cinema convention invite the viewer to take an object symbolically. A historical poetics should show how such interpretive inferences constitute viewing conventions. In other cases, when interpretation becomes a primary end of film criticism, the poetician must examine how those inferences inform the work of another artisan-the interpreter. Critical writing, in highbrow reviews and academic journals becomes rather like art itself: a body of historically distinct norms and customs, goals and shortcuts, exemplars and ordinary works. At this point, poetics becomes metacriticism.36

In the quotation above, Bordwell argues that film scholars do not need to emphasize a

complete turn away from interpretative practices. Instead, he suggests that film scholars

33 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 144. 34 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees, 150. 35 Ibid., 152. 36 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989), 272-273.

Mody 19

need to turn away from how those interpretative practices have been utilized to establish

meaning. He demonstrates that film scholars need to stop focusing on making meaning

from the text and begin to look at how the notion of making meaning has come into being

– in turn, study the interpreter. Keathley, however, suggests that film scholars utilize

interpretative method introspectively so that instead of de-emphasizing pleasure, film

scholars can utilize it to gain an objective understanding. The problem with Bordwell’s

argument is that, by taking away the pleasure from film studies scholars are losing

something of their autonomous states to metacriticism.

Bordwell asserts that historical poetics would be a useful methodology for film

scholars. This methodology calls for scholars “to supplement study of ‘the text’ with an

examination of a wide range of documents.”37 Bordwell contends that this would allow

for the researcher to “concentrate on historical norms of comprehension.”38 In this sense,

Bordwell is suggesting that rather than having the interpreter study film, the interpreter

can become the object of study through the norms of comprehension that they utilize.

Bordwell asserts that “poetics can enrich criticism by putting cinema’s social,

psychological, and aesthetic conventions at the center of inquiry.”39 He argues that film

scholars need to allow for “a sidestepped dislocation of interpretation.”40 Only then, will

academia achieve it’s full potential, not with the continuation of semantic fields but rather

a more extensive approach to film studies. Keathley offers film scholars an opportunity to

37 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. (Harvard University Press, 1989), 274. 38 David Bordwell. Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema, 274. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.

Mody 20

emphasize the systematic practices that Bordwell deems important and the personal

enjoyment that cinephiles gain from films. This enjoyment was also explored in detail

from various film theorists of the 1920’s such as Jean Epstein.

Mody 21

Chapter 3: Magic and The Cinephiliac Spirit The 1920s was defined by a newfound love for the cinema that inspired

cinephiliac writing. It was also the period in time when critics began to recognize film’s

significance as an art form. Much of the writing around this period deals with the

cinema’s mystique; it’s ability to affect cinephiles in ways that are difficult to put into

words. Jean Epstein was at the forefront of this writing. He utilized the term “photogénie”

to describe the ability of the cinema to give meaning to seemingly mundane images. F.W.

Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922) was a fundamental film from this period. Although Nosferatu

is a horror film, which utilizes special effects, it epitomizes the ideas that Epstein

discusses. Many aspects of the film are greatly enhanced through the photogenic. I will

utilize examples from Nosferatu to explain the notion of photogénie.41 The 1920s was a

period that dealt, in large part, with individualized accounts of cinephiles love for the

cinema. Keathely argues that this practice should continue today but it needs to be taken

further. These accounts should be written so that film scholars and cinephiles can gain an

objective, historical understanding from them.

3.1 Magnifying Experience

In his text entitled “Magnification”, Jean Epstein describes his experience of film

viewing as a physiological encounter. This means that the cinema does not just affect him

on a peripheral level but rather affects him deeply, altering his body on a profound level.

Epstein’s intense love of close-ups and motion in the cinema is an experience that still

exists among cinephiles today, however this love takes a different form. This experience

41 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 236.

Mody 22

is characterized by specialized viewing methods that have been perpetuated by an

inundation of media information.42 On the final page of his text, Epstein states that his

experience with the cinema extends to a:

Hunger for a hypnosis far more intense than reading offers, because reading modifies the functioning of the nervous system much less. The cinematic feeling is… particularly intense. More than anything else, the close-up releases it. Although we are not dandies, all of us are or are becoming blasé. Art takes the warpath. To attract customers, the circus showman must improve his acts and speed up his carousel from fair to fair. Being an artist means to astonish and excite. The habit of strong sensations, which the cinema is above all capable of producing, blunts theatrical sensations which are, moreover, of a lesser order. Theatre, watch out! If the cinema magnifies feeling, it magnifies it in every way. Its pleasure is more pleasurable, but its defects are more glaring.43

This statement is particularly interesting in light of cinema’s historical context. It

is exactly this intensity that mainstream viewers thrive on and utilize to distinguish

between what is a good film and what is a bad film. It is particularly interesting that in

the first sentence, Epstein describes the process of viewing or consuming a film as

hypnosis. It is through this statement that Epstein is describing the way in which people

enjoyed films at the time of his writing. It is not impossible for individuals in

contemporary society to experience film as a kind of hypnotic experience but it is indeed,

far more difficult. If film viewers want to achieve this experience they can go to the

IMAX or 3D films that demand undivided attention through their use of volume or

glasses. This type of film viewing allows for an individual to exist outside oneself while

they are engrossed by the story before them. Today film viewers can also watch a movie

42 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 43. 43 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 240.

Mody 23

on their iPhone while they take the bus to work. This viewing method would not allow

for the hypnosis that Epstein discusses. The films that are popular among the masses

today are films that are either completely immersive or films that you can watch,

understand, and enjoy while being preoccupied by several other things at the same time.

Epstein states that the cinema is capable of “[modifying] the functioning of the

nervous system.”44 What Epstein means by this statement is that the cinema has the

ability to change the individuals who watch it on a very fundamental level. This is a

particularly interesting way of describing a film experience and one that is shared by

contemporary cinephiles.45 Epstein describes the ability of the close-up to release the

cinematic feeling. In Epstein’s statement he argues that the role of the artist is to

“astonish and excite.”46 It is very interesting when one considers Epstein’s statement in a

contemporary context because it is this same experience that could lead an individual to

question whether or not the cinephiliac moment is possible today among cinephiles. If

the role of the artist is to provide a sense of overwhelming awe for the audience then, as

contemporary viewers who have “seen it all”, this affect has to be perpetually stunning

and surprising. It is not perhaps, as bleak as it seems however. Contemporary cinephiles

experience the cinema differently but this does not mean that they cannot also have

cinephiliac moments, rather the conception of them is varied.

44 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 240. 45 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 30. 46 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 240.

Mody 24

3.2 Photogénie and Nosferatu

In the final portion of Epstein’s statement he makes a comparison between theatre

and film. He argues that the cinema “magnifies feeling”47 which is not possible to the

same extent in theatre productions. In Nosferatu, there is one particular sequence that

epitomizes what Epstein discusses. When Hutter wakes up after spending a terrifying

night at Count Orlock’s castle he decides that he is going to try to uncover the mysteries

that befell him the night before. Hutter goes downstairs where he finds Count Orlock

sleeping in a coffin. After irrationally smashing the coffin open and running back upstairs

to try to make sense of everything he had just seen, he hears a noise coming from outside.

Hutter opens the window of his bedroom and discovers Count Orlock loading large

coffins onto a rectangular wooden surface that is set up to be pulled by horses. It is this

moment in the film that stop motion photography and rapid motion is used to show Count

Orlock’s remarkable speed and strength. Finally, the viewer is shown Count Orlock again,

as he places the last coffin on top of the others. He climbs into it and then magically

floats the lid until he is contained within it.

Special effects are a means through which Epstein argues that cinema differs from

theatre. Nosferatu magnifies the feeling of fear that could not have been accomplished in

the same way in a theatrical setting. This also ties back into Epstein’s concept of

photogénie because these moments are enhanced through the photogenic. Everything

appears more beautiful and frightening because the cinephile is watching it from an

objective viewpoint through the cinematic medium.

47 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 240.

Mody 25

This moment also illuminates the connection that Nosferatu shares with the larger

tradition of special effects in film history. Taking place in an artificial (although

romantic) space during the aftermath of the First World War, Nosferatu is a supernatural

figure, which represents “a symbolic personification of that fearful world out there.”48

There is a distinct relationship between the utilization of special effects in this moment

and the global as well as individualized fear of losing control. F.W. Murnau’s

employment of special effects is why this moment in Nosferatu appears so frightening.

Historically, Georges Méliès was one of the first filmmakers to propagate the

utilization of special effects. Méliès employed special effects extensively in his films. He

directed the earliest horror film ever made, Le Manoir du Diable. This film also utilizes

stop motion filming to make the beings appear supernatural. Much like the moment in

Nosferatu, when the character magically floats the lid of his coffin so that he is contained

within it, the characters in Le Manoir du Diable can disappear or appear at will.49 Stop

motion was utilized in early films as a way to expand the “technological capacity of the

cinema,” while at the same time, as a means of “exploring the ways that audiovisual

media can be used to perpetrate deception.”50 This was certainly true in the case of

Georges Méliès’ films. He wanted to astonish the audience in a way that could not have

been accomplished within the means of a theatrical performance. When Méliès utilized

special effects in his films, it was not solely for the experience of alarming the viewer

48 Gilberto Perez, “Nosferatu,” Raritan 13, no. 1 (1993): 1. 49 Le Manoir du Diable. Dir. George Méliès. (1896; France: Flicker Alley, 2010), DVD. 50 Colin Williamson, “The Blow Book, Performance Magic, and Early Animation: Mediating the Living Dead,” Animation 6, no. 2 (2011): 124.

Mody 26

through the feeling of a loss of control but rather “delighted and surprised audiences.”51

Méliès utilized the filmic medium to make his theatrical effects appear all the more

magical.

Another aspect of this moment from Nosferatu is illuminated through F.W.

Murnau’s emphasis on the supernatural entity. Not only has the character Nosferatu

surpassed life through his ability to manipulate objects but he has also overcome death.

F.W. Murnau utilizes Nosferatu’s immortality as a way of frightening the audience; evil

ghouls are much scarier when they cannot be defeated. However, this moment could also

illuminate a personification of the immortality of cinema itself. Andre Bazin asserted that

film provides “a defense against the passage of time.”52 Nosferatu utilizes his magical

powers to comfortably transport himself within a coffin only to exit when it is time to

prey on his next victim. Like the cinema, Nosferatu consumes the mortality of the subject

only to obtain his own life force. In the final seconds of the moment, the horses carry

Nosferatu away at an unnatural speed leaving Hutter utterly baffled and terrified. Hutter

becomes synonymous with myself experiencing the moment. He is frightened by the

magic that he sees and yet he is unable to turn away.

Epstein also discusses aspects of this moment. In particular, he explores some of

the problems with utilizing trick photography. He states that if “the cinema magnifies

feeling, it magnifies it in every way. Its pleasure is more pleasurable, but its defects are

51 Katherine Singer Kovacs, “George Méliès and the ‘Feerie,’” Cinema Journal 16, no. 1 (1976): 2. 52 Andre Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image,” in Film Theory and Criticism, ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 159.

Mody 27

more glaring.”53 In the moment from Nosferatu, Count Orlock begins to float the lid and

Murnau utilizes stop motion photography to make the trick appear as realistic as possible.

Unfortunately, there is a discontinuity between the placement of one of the horses before

and after the cut therefore causing a harsh break where the cut is extremely noticeable.

This portion of Nosferatu personifies Epstein argument that cinematic defects are perhaps

far more glaring than any other art form. This sequence also ties back into Epstein’s

notion of photogénie. Going back to Epstein’s definition of photogénie he describes “as

photogenic any aspect of things, beings or souls whose moral character is enhanced by

filmic reproduction. And any aspect not enhanced by filmic reproduction is not

photogenic, plays no part in the art of cinema.”54 This particular scene demonstrates what

Epstein means by the aspects that are not enhanced by the photogenic. When there is a

defect in the cinematic experience it pulls the viewer out of the storyline and it forces

them to focus on the mistake. This has the opposite effect that Epstein believes films

should have on the viewer and therefore they can be much more detrimental then any

mistake that would happen in a theatrical setting.

Epstein also illuminates the importance of the utilization of close ups for the

subjective experience of the viewer.

Epstein states earlier in his text that:

The close-up is the soul of cinema. It can be brief because the value of the photogenic is measured in seconds. If it is too long, I don’t find continuous pleasure in it. Intermittent paroxysms affect me the way needles do. Until now, I

53 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 240. 54 Epstein, in Richard Abel, French Film Theory and Criticism, 314.

Mody 28

have never seen an entire minute of pure photogénie. Therefore, one must admit that the photogenic is like a spark that appears in fits and starts.55

It is through this statement that Epstein’s argument closely correlates to what Keathley

presents. The concept of the cinephiliac moment is very similar to the idea presented by

Epstein of photogénie. There is a moment in Nosferatu in which Hutter stops mid journey

on his way to Count Orlock’s castle to eat and rest. When he goes into the dining area

and sits down he jubilantly yells out, “Quickly… bring my dinner – I’m on my way to

Count Orlock’s castle!”56 Just when he says this, everyone in the crowded dining room

turns and looks at him with terrified expressions on their faces. As Hutter notices

everyone’s expression, his own expression transforms from joyful to confusion. This

medium close-up on Hutter’s face illuminates what Epstein argues, that the close up is

the soul of the cinema. What Epstein means by this statement is that the close up is

fundamentally linked to the definition of photogénie. Photogénie, like the close up shares

this similarity of maintaining the essence or the soul of the cinematic by how it enhances

the aspects on the screen. In this particular scene in Nosferatu, it is Hutter’s ignorance

perhaps more than anything that is enhanced by this use of medium close-up. This

medium close-up demonstrates the trusting good nature of Hutter’s character, which is

ultimately juxtaposed against Count Orlock’s nature for the entirety of the film.

This moment also illuminates the importance of the close up in film history. The

first use of the close up has been difficult to determine in film history. It has been

55 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 236. 56 Nosferatu. Dir. F.W. Murnau. (1922; Weimar Republic: Film Arts Guild, 2007), DVD.

Mody 29

attributed to many films, most notably “Edison’s kinetoscopic record of a sneeze” (1894)

or “the close shot of a bank robber shooting his gun toward the audience in Edwin S.

Porter’s 1903 The Great Train Robbery.”57 Both of these shots differ quite dramatically

from the moment in Nosferatu. The characters in both of these shots acknowledge the

camera during its duration. The recognition of the fourth wall is a means of breaking

down the barrier between the audience and the characters. No one is safe from Justus D.

Barnes’ gun as he takes aim and shoots toward the audience. In the same vein, however,

because the fourth wall is still fully enforced, no one in the audience can warn Hutter

about the impeding horror that he will surely have to face. This frustration that I feel

while experiencing this moment typifies the horror genre. This feeling can often be

attributed to Hitchcock’s films. Ernest Callenbach claimed that Psycho (1960) is so well

constructed “that it can lead audiences… to cry out to the characters, in hopes of

dissuading them from going to the door that has been cleverly established as awaiting

them.”58

The moment in Nosferatu allows me to experience momentary delight when

witnessing Hutter’s face change because it is as if, for the first time in a horror film, the

hero may not commit to the mistake that they are making. It is perhaps this moment of

hesitation that interests me most, the pause before the decision is made. In a description

of auteur theory from Andrew Sarris in 1962 he describes a similar moment of hesitation

in the film La Regle du Jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939). He demonstrates that the moment is an

identification of the “intangible difference between one personality (of a director) and

57 Mary Ann Doane, “The Close-Up: Scale and Detail in the Cinema,” A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 14, no. 3 (2003): 91. 58 Ernest Callenbach, “Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock,” Film Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1960): 47.

Mody 30

another, all other things being equal” otherwise known as “the élan of the soul.”59 This

intangible aspect can also be identified in other aspects of Murnau’s directing, such as his

utilization of the long shot. He employs the long shot often in his filmmaking process,

being cited as having “primarily a cinema of empty space.”60 Perhaps this is why the

medium close up of Hutter’s face was so fervently drawn to my attention.

Some scholars assert that the close up demonstrates “the hidden mainsprings of a

life which we had thought we already knew so well.”61 Such shots, presented to the

audience from an objective viewpoint are seen (spiritually) for the first time. This is akin

to what Epstein describes. Epstein recognizes that the close up provides the cinema with

a spiritual life. In the moment from Nosferatu, Hutter perpetuates the fears that the

individuals in a post war society would conceivably face. Hutter represents a shockingly

naïve character who is trusting to a fault. In a society, where no one feels safe it is

unquestionable that this would scare many viewers. If Nosferatu represents the fearful

world then Hutter represents the way through which an individual should not respond to

it.62 Hutter’s naivety was so deeply embedded within his character that his confusion

served as a crime due for punishment later in the film. In the final seconds of this moment

when Hutter turns from the man who is warning him to stay away from Nosferatu’s castle,

he laughs. His fate is sealed in his smile.

59Andrew Sarris, “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962,” in Film Theory and Criticism, Seventh Edition, Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 451. 60 Gilberto Perez Guillermo, “Shadow and Substance: F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu,” Sight and Sound 36, no. 3 (1967): 153. 61 Bela Balasz, “The Close-Up,” in Film Theory and Criticism, Seventh Edition, Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 273. 62 Gilberto Perezm, “Nosferatu,” Raritan 13, no. 1 (1993): 1.

Mody 31

When Nosferatu was made in the 1920s many cinephiles had begun writing about

the cinema already. Most of the writing that took place at this time was characterized by

individual’s accounts of the cinema and how it affected them personally.63 Epstein can

attest to this. Although the writing from this time is illuminating, it does not attempt to

show the readers anything systematic about the author’s understanding.

Both of these moments from Nosferatu typify Epstein’s conceptual understanding

of photogénie. They show us that these particular scenes being portrayed in the film are

meant to show the viewers something about the world from an objective standpoint that

they otherwise would not have seen. Although Nosferatu is, as a story, steeped in fantasy

the real is made more beautiful because we are no longer looking at it through the haze

that our own prejudices that are cast over our sight. These moments demonstrate a time in

history when writings were dedicated to the personal experience of the viewer with the

cinema.

Epstein’s description of photogénie is very similar to Keathley’s discussion of the

cinephiliac moment. Epstein describes photogénie as “a spark that appears in fits and

starts”64 while Keathley describes the cinephiliac moments as “the site where this prior

presence, this fleeting experience of the real, is felt most intensely or magically.”65 These

two quotations, while clearly demonstrating a similar sensibility also show how these two

concepts differ. 63 Laura Mulvey, “Some Reflections on the Cinephilia Question,” Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media 50, no. 1 & 2 (2009): 191. 64 Jean Epstein and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 236. 65 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 37.

Mody 32

In his text, Pausing over Peripheral Detail, Roger Cardinal also argues for the

importance of the cinephiliac moment. Cardinal states that what he notices in films, “or

[elects] to notice, is necessarily a function of [his] sensibility, so much so that a list of

[his] favorite details will equate to an oblique mirror-image of [himself], becoming more

noticeably idiosyncratic the longer it extends.”66 Keathley identifies with this notion that

there is something within the cinephiliac moments that presents itself as a mirror. The

incremental details that cinephiles notice may in fact present them with something that

they did not know about themselves. Although, Epstein argues the importance of

photogénie in Magnification and Other Writings, it is his goal to state that film scholars

will learn something about themselves by paying better attention to the mundane details.

Epstein argues that all of the incremental or mundane aspects of films are important in

effect for showing us something about the world we live in. This understanding can be

explained through Abel’s text, French Cinema: The First Wave, 1915-1929. He states

that:

In Cinea, Delluc and his colleagues began to sketch out a loose set of criteria for determining film art. Chief among them was the elusive term, photogénie, which Delluc used to point to the sometimes artless, sometimes artful, transforming power of film in relation to reality, but which became a kind of “floating signifier” that recurred frequently throughout the 1920s.67 This quotation exemplifies the same findings that Epstein emphasized

within his writings. The function of the cinema in the 1920’s was to bring the

viewer back to reality and show them something about the world they live in. This

was done through the recognition of photogénie. This quotation exemplifies how

66 Rodger Cardinal, “Pausing Over Peripheral Detail,” Framework 30/31 (1986): 118. 67 Richard Abel, French Cinema: The First Wave, 1915-1929. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987), 249.

Mody 33

cinephiles of the 1920’s understood films and ultimately encountered their own

experience of the cinephiliac moment. The experience that Epstein describes does

differ from Keathley’s understanding of the cinephiliac moment in a few ways,

however they also have very close similarities. Seeing something through fresh

eyes that allows the film viewer to appreciate it in a new way is the means through

which Epstein discusses a conception of cinephiliac moments. The time context is

also important in developing an understanding of the cinephiliac moment in the

1920’s because the aim of cinematic experience, according to Epstein, was to show

cinephiles the beauty in reality.

This statement from Richard Abel also reinforces Epstein’s notion of the close up

as the soul of cinema. In particular, his emphasis on the personalized experience of film

viewing illuminates how one can utilize photogénie to establish a cinephiliac moment.

Film theorists such as Epstein demonstrate that the experience of the cinema was very

different in the 1920’s. Keathley argues that it is this experience with the cinema that is

lacking among the film scholars today. By emphasizing analytic film study through

individualized passion for the cinema based on the incidental details, a student would

gain a greater understanding of film history. This understanding would be gained because

the historical analysis would be based on the subjective experience rather than a purely

systematic understanding. The experience that was utilized to analyze films in the 1920’s

can also be seen in the 1960’s.

Mody 34

Chapter 4: Seemingly Breathless Many scholars such as Christian Keathley agree that the 1960s were an idealized

time for the cinephile. In particular, this is the contextual lens through which Keathley

addresses the cinephiliac moment. He argues that much of the writing that was done

during the 1960’s had a personal bias inherent within it. The writings were focused much

more on the personal relationship one had between a film and his or herself rather

focusing on the objective meaning of the film. In Cinephilia and History, Keathley states

that:

There can be little doubt that, at least among the younger critics, la politique des auteurs was “the undisputed system” on which almost all critical writing at Cahiers du Cinéma was based. Unlike Bazin, who balanced questions of authorship with a thoughtful consideration of a variety of other factors – genre, the star system, technology, economics, the industrial structure of the motion picture industry, and so on – Godard, Truffaut, and the others were concerned above all else with making a case for the auteur status of certain favored directors. But this explicit program did not always result, as one might expect, in an orthodox critical writing practice of evaluation marked by a careful presentation of evidentiary support. In reviews of films by privileged directors, emphasis was usually laid less on evaluation than on an articulation of the director’s recurring theme or an attempt at a description of his style.68

The relevance of this quotation stems from how Keathley became inspired by these

writers to integrate personal preference into his own ideas. This notion of the auteur was

particular prevalent in the 1950s in France as well as the unorthodox writing that

ultimately stemmed from that. It is at this period of time that film scholars can see a

different way to understand film history. The writers of this time did not emphasize what

made the film important from an objective standpoint but rather how the film tied into the

68 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 82.

Mody 35

greater selection of works by the same director. How, in particular, the auteur dealt with

themes or how they had changed was extremely important to the Cahiers du Cinéma.

Paul Willemen argues:

[T]hat even such apparently crucial issues as consistency of style and theme were, in Cahiers writing, often given less emphasis than a simple recounting of certain memorable scenes or moments. He explains, “If you read the early Cahiers stuff that Truffaut and Godard were writing, you see that they were responding to films. […] What they were writing at that time was a highly impressionistic account; in T.S. Eliot’s terms, an “evocative equivalent” of moments which, to them, were privileged moments of the film. These moments which, when encountered in a film spark something which then produce the energy and the desire to write.69

It is demonstrated from this quote that the practice maintained by the writers of Cahiers

du Cinéma appear to be extremely close to how Keathley argues that we should utilize

and in turn, write about cinephiliac moments. The ideas and writings that the Cahiers du

Cinéma emphasized greatly influenced Keathley’s own views. Keathley found value in

the personal accounts the Cahiers critics wrote. He saw this as an alternative history that

may allow film scholars to learn something new. This is what Keathley envisioned when

he addressed the concept of cinephiliac moments. He argues that something gets left

behind if cinephiles do not utilize their love for the cinema.

This period of writing about the cinema rose just before film studies was

established in an institutionalized setting. Quickly after this took place film scholars saw

the de-emphasis of the subjective understanding. How the writers of Cahiers du Cinéma

understood and wrote about cinema differs greatly from how dominant film viewers

understand cinema today, even cinematic scholars. These individuals will not write about

a particular moment in a film unless it emphasizes a point that they are trying to make.

Writing about film for the personal enjoyment that cinephiles gain from that experience 69 Paul Willemen, “Through the Glass Darkly: Cinephilia Reconsiderd,” in Looks and Frictions (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 231.

Mody 36

no longer exists and film scholars have to work very hard to bring this emphasis back to

the forefront.

4.1 Panoramic Perception and the Ability to Notice Keathley argues that film scholars should emphasize similarities between how they

experience film today and how the Cahiers critics emphasized it when they were writing.

Keathley states that:

…cinephilia begins with the individual who has a passionate love for the cinema, and extends from him or her to other like-minded individuals; for the recounting of privileged moments in such detail is a key feature of the dialogue about movies carried out among cinephiles.70

Keathley extends the argument made by the Cahiers critics only slightly further

suggesting a new way to consider film history. He suggests that one can take their initial

experience with the cinephiliac moment and extend it so “that it imparts information,

knowledge, and insight.”71 In turn, this would be utilized in a larger historical

understanding so scholarship can still maintain a systematized method of study.

Keathley’s discussion of panoramic perception and how this relates to Breathless

is very important for gaining a better understanding of cinephiliac moments. Specifically,

Keathley addresses panoramic perception in the second chapter of his text. He states that:

The encounters that I am defining as cinephiliac moments depend in large part on an alternative spectatorial practice, one that stands in some contrast to the spectatorial posture assumed by dominant cinema. But giving up this more traditional posture for an alternative demands effort, for dominant cinema so thoroughly guides the spectator’s gaze that it has created habits of viewing that are hard to break… In contrast to this disciplined viewer, Cardinal writes, is the viewer who possesses a “willfully perverse gaze,” a viewer who actively resists

70 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 83. 71 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees, 134.

Mody 37

the congruity forced on images by the continuity system and instead seeks out the details not categorizable as studia.72

This quotation identifies a way of watching films, which greatly differs from the

dominant means of watching. Keathley argues that the practice of viewing through

panoramic perception is certainly possible among cinephiles with any type of film.

Although one could argue that there are certain films that cater to this viewing practice

more than others. In particular, Breathless is a film that accommodates panoramic

perception. As a film that epitomizes the French New Wave it was the cornerstone for

innovation and distinctive filmmaking of its time. If one considers the film itself, it

emphasizes the practice of jostling the audience through the insistent use of jump cuts.

The film is extremely unconventional in comparison to the dominant continuity system.

Breathless, therefore, easily allows for the alternative viewing processes that cinephiles

possess.

Keathley describes this method of alternate viewing through the utilization of his

concept panoramic perception. Keathley states that:

Prior to the railway, [Wolfgang] Schivelbusch explains, the fastest and most common method of long-distance travel had been the horse-drawn coach; but with the development of the railroad, it became possible to triple the amount of distance traditionally covered in a given period of time. This dramatic increase in the speed of travel had a profound effect not only on people’s concepts of space and time but also on their habits of visual perception. While the slowness of pre-rail travel enabled full visual and sensory experience of a landscape, the speed of the train meant a transformation in visual perception. The only alternative was for the passenger to “acquire a mode of perception adequate to technical travel” – a mode of perception Schivelbusch calls “panoramic.”73

72 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 42. 73 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees, 42-43.

Mody 38

The use of the term panoramic imparts an understanding of what is meant by Keathley’s

notion of panoramic perception in relation to cinephiliac viewing of films. Keathley

demonstrates that this particular technological advancement had a profound affect on

how people began to watch and enjoy films. Being presented with this definition of

panoramic leads one to infer that Keathley’s meaning suggests that while cinephiles are

watching the landscape pass them from inside a train, they are only able to catch snippets

or moments that are particularly relevant to them as an individual. Cinephiliac moments

as experienced while watching a film, according to Keathley, function a lot like this.

While the popular viewer may focus greatly on the story or other narrative aspects, the

cinephiliac viewer will be able to set those broader understandings aside and explore the

film as a visual medium. The cinephiliac viewer can pull out the moments that are

particularly important to them while at the same time following along with the rest of the

narrative. Keathley describes this process in more detail. He states that:

Though primarily given over to absorption in the cinematic experience, the cinephile is a divided spectator who supplements the absorbed gaze of the dominant cinema’s viewer with the distracted glance of the early-era cinemagoer, attempting to increase the possibility of experiencing cinephiliac moments.74

It is through this process that we can find the connections to Jean Luc Godard’s

film Breathless. Toward the end of the film Patricia and Michel locate a house where

they can stay while the police are looking for him. They are sitting on a couch next to one

another while the friend with whom they are staying is finishing up a photo shoot.

Patricia is flipping through a magazine as they begin to have a conversation.

Patricia: “I was just thinking…”

Michel: “What?” 74 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 112-113.

Mody 39

Patricia: “I’m not sure.”

Michel: “About?”

Patricia: “I don’t know. Otherwise I’d be sure.”

Michel: “You dump your journalist?”

Patricia: “Yes.”

Michel: “Why’d you say hello?”

Patricia: “To make sure I didn’t love him anymore.”

Up until this point in the scene I am completely transfixed by the conversation

that Michel and Patricia are having. It is at this moment that the sunglasses, which Michel

is wearing throughout the entirety of the scene, are suddenly missing a lens. A jump cut is

utilized at this point to make the oddity appear even stranger. Michel looks to the camera

as if to ask a question of the audience. The conversation finishes, cutting back to a close

up of Patricia.

Michel: “You complicate your life.”75

The next shot that is shown of Michel, he is no longer wearing his sunglasses. It is

through this presentation of shots that one can see that Jean Luc Godard affectively

accommodated the panoramic perception viewing method of cinephiles. Godard pulls the

viewer completely away from the story as the conversation between the two characters

begins to get serious and emphasizes the camera, by getting the actor playing Michel to

look directly at it. In this sense Godard is provoking the audience to become aware of the

camera and in turn, feel emotion because of it, whether that is laughter or frustration.

75 A bout de soufflé. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard. (1960; France: Rialto Pictures, 2010 DVD).

Mody 40

This moment from Breathless also illuminates the history of editing film. Ever

since the making of Breathless, Jean Luc Godard has been categorized as an “editorial

innovator.”76 This was one of the first films to explore the utilization of jump cuts as a

high art technique.77 With the invention of cinema, came the earliest techniques in editing.

Many films were staged as a theatrical production. Some of the earliest filmmakers,

including the Lumière Brothers utilized one take to compose their films, such as Arrival

of a Train.78 With the utilization of continuity editing, film viewers became more

comfortable with the medium as they were exposed to it. Some scholars contend that

“cuts are invisible because they correspond to visual interruptions that occur naturally.”79

When the cut or edit appears unnatural to the human eye the effect can be akin to “being

woken from a deep sleep by a crash or a loud yell.”80 This is the effect of the jump cut in

this moment from Breathless. Jump cuts are generally defined as the removal of “part of

a continuous shot”81 while also maintaining “minor variances in camera angle.”82 Many

76 Vincent LoBrutto, “’Invisible’ or ‘Visible’ Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies,” Cineaste – America’s Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 34, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 45. 77 Vincent LoBrutto, “’Invisible’ or ‘Visible’ Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies,” 45. 78 Dennis Karwatka, “The Lumière Brothers and Their Motion Picture Projection Equipment,” Tech Directions 66, no. 6 (Jan 2007): 10. 79 J.E. Cutting, “Perceiving scenes in film and in the world,” in Moving image theory: Ecological considerations, ed. J.D. Anderson and B.F. Anderson (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005), 9-27. 80 Vincent LoBrutto, “’Invisible’ or ‘Visible’ Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies,” Cineaste – America’s Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 34, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 45. 81 Vincent LoBrutto, “’Invisible’ or ‘Visible’ Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies,” Cineaste – America’s Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 34, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 45. 82 Crystal Mowry, “Laurel Woodcock: Jump Cuts,” International Contemporary Art, .113 (Spring 2012): 49.

Mody 41

filmmakers were influenced by Godard’s work, for example, “the premier auteur of Hong

Kong cinema”, Wong Kar-Wai is included among them83. He utilized jump cuts in many

of his films to “seamlessly [blend] temporally exclusive scenes together, making the

passage of time unnoticeable.”84 By forcing the audience to be unaware of the time Wong

Kar-Wai’s use of the jump cut has the effect of lulling the audience into a fantastical

world that is not dictated by the constraints of typical narrative filmmaking. In the

moment from Breathless, Godard conveys a similar break with narrative filmmaking,

although he does this by jostling the audience through his editing, and the seemingly self-

reflexive quality that this moment maintains. In the final seconds of the moment, when

Michel is missing a lens from his glasses and looking directly at the camera, I feel as

though I can see Godard looking out through the screen. With the revelation of Michel’s

one eye I am unquestionably awake to a new era of filmmaking.

4.2 The Stimulus Shield

Keathley describes in greater detail why the experiences of these moments are so

important. He states:

In summarizing Walter Benjamin’s account of the conditions and effects of modernity, Susan Buck-Morss explains that the individual inhabiting the modern world lives behind a stimulus shield – in a perpetual state of distraction in which ordinary sense experience is cut off from cognition. But this individual is also cut off from memory… In Benajminian terms, cinephiliac moments, experienced as

83 Timothy R. Gleason, Qi Tang, Jean Giovanetti, “Wong Kar-Wai: An international autueur in Hong Kong film-making,” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 12, no. 2 (2002): 291. 84 Timothy R. Gleason, Qi Tang, Jean Giovanetti, “Wong Kar-Wai: An international autueur in Hong Kong film-making,” 304.

Mody 42

an eruption of the sensuous, the haptical, or the tactile in the domain of the visual, reconnect sense experience with cognition, and thus with memory.85

This quotation demonstrates the importance of cinephiliac moments. Like it is described

above, the experience of the cinpehiliac moment allows for cinephiles to break down the

stimulus shield and experience. Keathley’s statement demonstrates the importance of the

experience of panoramic perception and in turn, cinephiliac moments. Typically, and

especially in contemporary society consumers of media are usually placed behind a shield.

This shield is established because the stimulation has become so effective that they need

to maintain a way of blocking it. Now, this can be very dangerous because if film viewers

maintain this shield at all times they are not allowing themselves to experience via their

sensory perception. Keathely, in turn, argues that this directly impacts a cinephile’s

memory. If cinephiles are not allowing themselves to experience films through sensory

perception then they will ultimately forget that experience because they have a natural

blocking system against it. This is why, as Keathley argues, it is important to maintain

this practice of panoramic perception in which cinephiles can pull themselves away from

the stimulus shield and experience a cinephiliac moment. This quotation also emphasizes

why cinephiliac moments are so important to film history. If film scholars have no

memory of the experience of the film, than they have no means of which to understand

film history on a subjective basis. In turn, cinephiles would be rejecting the idea of

finding an alternative history to simply repeat the objective histories that have already

been communicated. Through this understanding of film history there would be no need

for the passion or love of cinema but film scholars would also remain behind their

stimulus shield. 85 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 113.

Mody 43

Chapter 5: 500 Days of Summer

Cinephiles have moved from a period of writing about the cinema in the 1920’s.

This period of time was mostly characterized by personal enjoyment and a personal

connection with films. The 1960’s were characterized as a time in which the cinephiles

wrote about films that they loved but it was also when film studies became

institutionalized within academia. In the contemporary period cinephiles have

experienced a turn away from writing about the cinema to extend their enjoyment. Now,

when scholars such as Bordwell and (less recently) Laura Mulvey write about films, it is

with the intention of destroying pleasure. Scholars such as Bordwell and Mulvey believe

that utilizing interpretative and subjective experience cannot be concretized in the

academic setting in a way that would impart useful knowledge. However, Keathley

demonstrates that cinephiles can maintain a systematized study while emphasizing the

passion that made them love film in the first place. This will, in turn, allow film scholars

to gain a systematic understanding of film history without having to turn away from the

joy they experience from films today. Keathely notes these moments of cinephilic joy as

particularly relevant in developing meaning from films.

In the film 500 Days of Summer, there is one moment in particular which draws

my attention every time I watch it. After Summer and Tom have a fight about the status

of their relationship, Summer feels horrible about the way she had acted. In the middle of

the night, Summer goes to Tom’s apartment to apologize and when she knocks on the

door the shot cuts to the large window in Tom’s apartment. The window is lit externally

from a street lamp, which acts as the only source of light in the whole apartment while

rain gently falls in slow motion against the windowpane. As Tom’s silhouette enters the

Mody 44

frame from the right side he moves forward toward the door while he puts a shirt over his

head.86

This moment illuminates the history of how lighting has been utilized in films. In

particular, this moment draws my attention to a similar lighting technique that is most

often portrayed through film noir. Film noir is a style from the 1940s and 50s pertaining

to shadow-filled low-key lighting.87 In the aftermath of a war filled society, Schickel

contends that noir is a product of “the antagonism” of the war turning “with a new

viciousness toward the American society itself.”88 In this moment from 500 Days of

Summer, Tom is feeling a similar sense of hostility toward his life. This hostility is

portrayed through the utilization of lighting in this moment. It appears as though it is his

shadow, rather than him that is walking toward the door. This element in 500 Days of

Summer, however, does not convey a sense of foreboding, it appears as a communication

of melancholy. Similarly, film noir often characterizes the use of shadow as more

important than light.89 The shadow can convey anything from atmospheric overtones to

an expression of character or internal conflict but historically, the use of shadow always

maintains a function. Many directors of the film noir period including Fritz Lang, Billy

Wilder, Jacques Tourneur, and Andre de Toth “were born in Europe and well versed in

expressionism.”90 Expressionism provided a means of inspiration for the lighting

86 (500) Days of Summer. Dir. Marc Webb. (2009; United States: Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2009 DVD). 87 Monohla Dargis, “N For Noir,” Sight and Sound 7, no. 7 (Jul. 1997): 31. 88 Richard Schickel, “Rerunning Film Noir,” The Wilson Quarterly 31, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 38. 89 Monohla Dargis, “N For Noir,” Sight and Sound 7, no. 7 (Jul. 1997): 59. 90 Richard Schickel, “Rerunning Film Noir,” The Wilson Quarterly 31, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 36.

Mody 45

techniques that film noir directors utilized. Expressionism originated from the notion of

communicating internal states of being. It was determined “that for creation to take place,

the inner experience must be externalized.”91 This is why expressionism is very well

suited to the film medium, it allows for a dynamic representation of internal conflict. As

a German expressionist film, F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) was

influential in its use of lighting techniques. When shooting his film, “Murnau placed an

artificial moon over a real marsh and used studio lighting on his back lot to create

shadows even in the night scenes.”92 This allowed for light that “not only flows… but

also seems to melt.”93 In 500 Days of Summer, the lighting that is cast from the

streetlamp offers a similar effect. The red glow personifies a sunset: an ending to the

relationship that Tom thought he knew.

This moment is particularly relevant in relation to what Keathley argues in his text,

referencing the cinephiliac moment. Keathley demonstrates that an experience of a

cinephiliac moment is not staged for the audience to perceive but rather determined by

the individual viewer as particularly relevant for gaining meaning from the film.94 This

moment in 500 Days of Summer was certainly not designed to be identified with, in any

91 John S. Titford, “Object-Subject Relationships in German Expressionist Cinema,” Cinema Journal 13, no. 1 (Autumn 1973): 17. 92 J. Hoberman, “Voice Choices: Film: Through a Looking Glass: An Expressionist Landmark Lights the Way for an Extensive Retro of a Silent Master’s Work,” The Village Voice 49, no. 36 (Sep 8, 2004-Sep 14, 2004): 59. 93 J. Hoberman, “Voice Choices: Film: Through a Looking Glass: An Expressionist Landmark Lights the Way for an Extensive Retro of a Silent Master’s Work,” 59. 94 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 30.

Mody 46

particular way that would cause the viewer to change their understanding of the film and

yet it does maintain that impact from a subjective experience.

In Keathley’s text, he utilizes Rodger Cardinal’s ideas to demonstrate another

level of importance found within the cinephiliac moment. Cardinal argues that not only

are cinephiles gaining a better understanding of the film itself but they are also gaining a

better understanding of themselves through the experience of these moments.95 There is

certainly something to be said for attaining a reflection of the individual from the

moments that they define as particularly important in films. By gaining a reflection of the

individual, Cardinal means to say the cinephile is gaining a reflection of how they see the

world and how this, in turn can be altered when shown characteristics of the real that they

are drawn to in films. Keathley describes the means through which I hope to demonstrate

my understanding of this particular moment from 500 Days of Summer. He demonstrates

an aspect of our understanding that is particularly useful in determining why cinephiles

enjoy particular moments from particular films. He recognizes this understanding through

a process of identification with the real. Keathley states that:

Fallagher and Greenblatt emphasize that they are most often taken by those anecdotes that possess “what William Carlos Williams terms ‘the strange phosphorus of the life.’ That is, these anecdotes provide a unique experience of access to the real. Out of an enormous archive of documents, one strikes the scholar with a particular urgency as the representation of a prior reality; the close relationship between the anecdote and the real it refers to is suddenly and unexpectedly felt.96

This subjective understanding certainly did not come easily or quickly to academic film

scholars during the period of academic emphasis and it continues to evade a lot of

95 Rodger Cardinal, “Pausing Over Peripheral Detail,” Framework 30/31 (1986): 118. 96 Christian Keathley, Cinephilia and History or the Wind in the Trees. (Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press, 2005), 138.

Mody 47

scholars today. However, critics of the 1920’s such as Epstein wrote about this subjective

understanding of the real. This moment from 500 Days of Summer allowed me to

appreciate the beauty in the seemingly mundane or insignificant aspects of life. The

simplicity of walking across an apartment floor while rain patters against the

windowpane can be made beautiful if one is presented with the image from an objective

point of view. The meaning that I have gained from this moment in 500 Days of Summer

stems directly from my encounter with the magnificence of the real. Another individual

may watch this moment and see nothing of particular import or consequence.

The experience of the cinephiliac moment can be drawn from the earliest writers

about cinema. From the 1920’s up until now, cinephiles have all shared a common

experience, which is based around the love for films. With academic film studies’

introduction into the institution there was an attempt to turn away from cinematic

pleasure. Now that film studies has developed itself within the academic institution,

Christian Keathley argues that cinephiles should reintroduce the pleasure that they lost

from cinema with its induction into the institution. Through Keathley’s methodology

cinephiles can maintain a formalized history without losing the passion that made them

love film in the first place.

Mody 48

Suggestions for Future Research This thesis identified the importance of subjective experience in relation to

film inquiry and raises a question that would benefit from further research. It would

be particularly interesting to expand the knowledge gained from the cinephiliac

anecdote to a longitudinal study. This thesis looked at three distinct time periods in

order to determine the differences in cinematic experience based on context. In this

thesis, one of the questions that was posed was, what objective knowledge is gained

through the utilization of the cinephiliac anecdote and how has contextual cinematic

experience defined this knowledge? In future research, it would be interesting to

examine contemporary cinephiles and their use of the cinephiliac anecdote. This

study could show how objective knowledge changes and how that change is

influenced over a given period of time in their life.

Mody 49

Bibliography (500) Days of Summer. Directed by Marc Webb. 2009. United States: Fox Searchlight

Pictures, 2009. DVD. Abel, Richard. French Cinema: The First Wave. 1915-1929, 249. New Jersey: Princeton

University Press, 1987. A Bout De Souffle. Directed by Jean-Luc Godard. 1960. France: Rialto Pictures, 2010. DVD. Balasz, Bela. “The Close-up.” In Film Theory and Criticism. Seventh Edition. Leo Braudy and

Marshall Cohen, 273-281. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Bazin, Andre. “The Ontology of the Photographic Image.” In Film Theory and Criticism,

edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, 159-163. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Bordwell, David. In Making Meaning: Inference & Rhetoric in the Interpretation of

Cinema, 352: Harvard University Press, 1989. Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed December 13, 2012).

Callenbach, Ernest. “Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock.” Film Quarterly 14, no. 1 (Autumn,

1960): 47-49. Cardinal, Rodger. “Pausing Over Peripheral Detail.” Framework 30/31 (1986): 118. cinephile. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cinephile (accessed: January 22, 2013) Cutting, J.E. “Perceiving scenes in film and in the world.” In Moving image theory:

Ecological considerations, edited by J.D. Anderson and B.F. Anderson, 9-27. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005.

Dargis, Monohla. “N For Noir.” Sight and Sound 7, no. 7 (Jul 1997): 28, 30-31, 3. Doane, Mary Ann. “The Close-Up: Scale and Detail in the Cinema.” A Journal of

Feminist Cultural Studies 14, no. 3 (2003): 89-111. Epstein, Jean and Stuart Liebman.,“Magnification and Other Writings,” in French Film

Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939, ed. Richard Abel, 235-240. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Epstein in Richard Abel. French Film Theory and Criticism, 1907-1939. Volume 1, 1907-

1929. 314. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1988a.

Mody 50

Giovanetti, Jean; Timothy Gleason and Qi Tang. “Wong Kar-Wai: An international auteur in Hong Kong film-making.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 12, no. 2 (2002): 291.

Hoberman, J. “Voice Choices: Film: Through a Looking Glass: An Expressionist

Landmark Lights the Way for an Extensive Retro of a Silent Master’s Work.” The Village Voice 49, no. 36 (Sep 8, 2004-Sep 14, 2004): 59.

Karwatka, Dennis. “The Lumière Brothers and Their Motion Picture Projection

Equipment.” Tech Directions 66, no. 6 (Jan. 2007): 10. Keathley, Christian. Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees. Bloomington, IN,

USA: Indian University Press, 2005. Kovacs, Katherine Singer. “George Méliès and the ‘Feerie.’” Cinema Journal 16, no. 1

(Autumn, 1976): pp. 1-13. Le Manoir du Diable. Directed by George Méliès. 1896. France: Flicker Alley, 2010.

DVD. Leutrat, Jean-Louis. “Traces That Resemble Us: Godard’s Passion.” Sub-Stance 51, no. 3

(1986): 36-51. LoBrutto, Vincent. “’Invisible or ‘Visible’ Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles

and Strategies.” Cineaste – America’s Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema 34, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 43-47.

Mowry, Crystal. “Laurel Woodcock: jump cuts.” International Contemporary Art, .113

(Spring 2012): 49-50. Mulvey, Laura. “Some Reflections on the Cinephilia Question.” Framework: The

Journal of Cinema and Media 50, no. 1 & 2 (Spring & Fall 2009): 190-193. Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Film Theory and Criticism.

Seventh Edition. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. 711-722. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Nosferatu. Directed by Freldrich Wilhelm Murnau. 1922. Weimar Republic: Film Arts

Guild, 2007. DVD. Perez Guillermo, Gilberto. “Shadow and Substance: F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu.” Sight

and Sound 36, no. 3 (1967): 150-159. Perezm, Gilberto. “Nosferatu.” Raritan 13, no. 1 (Summer93 1993): 1. Academic Search

Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed March 27, 2013).

Mody 51

Sarris, Andrew. “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962.” Film Theory and Criticism. Seventh Edition. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. 451-454. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Schickel, Richard. “Rerunning Film Noir.” The Wilson Quarterly 31, no. 3 (Summer

2007): 36-43. Sterritt, David. “Shadow of the Vampire (Motion Picture Review).” Cineaste 25, no. 4

(September 2000): 34. Academic Search Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed March 28, 2013).

Titford, John S. “Object-Subject Relationships in German Expressionist Cinema.”

Cinema Journal 13, no. 1 (Autumn 1973): 17-24. Willemen, Paul. “Through the Glass Darkly: Cinephilia Reconsiderd,” in Looks and

Frictions. 231. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Williamson, Colin. “The Blow Book, Performance Magic, and Early Animation:

Mediating the Living Dead.” Animation 6, no. 2 (2011): 111- 127.