2011
DOI: 10.3726/978-3-0351-0256-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What Makes a Film Tick?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…She took the thesis of Gibson that perception is always an environmental process. That means that the perception of a body always relates to the ground: what a body does and feels in relation to the ground [6]. Then she summarized that perception and embodied experience always have an affective dimension.…”
Section: The Visual Perception In Cinema and The Affectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…She took the thesis of Gibson that perception is always an environmental process. That means that the perception of a body always relates to the ground: what a body does and feels in relation to the ground [6]. Then she summarized that perception and embodied experience always have an affective dimension.…”
Section: The Visual Perception In Cinema and The Affectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The curator of the Whitney Museum, Chrissie Iles, argued that in ‘the immersive space of contemporary commercial cinema … you’re passive and motionless, and you’re transfixed by the image’ (p. 15). These descriptions invoke an understanding of film spectatorship that is anathema to many film scholars who have spent decades debunking this notion of the disembodied spectator (see, for example, Barker, 2009; Curtis, 2008; Hansen, 2012; Marks, 2000; Rutherford, 2011; Shaviro, 1993; Sobchack, 1992). A key aspect of redefining the film spectator has been a recognition of the capacity of the two-dimensional cinematic image to evoke a kinesthetic embodied response.…”
Section: A New Hybridisation: Architecture Exhibition and The Moving Imagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…We recognize the materiality of film -that it engages tactile, sensory and kinaesthetic registers as essential dimensions of spectatorship -and the trope of the spectator as a disembodied set of eyes, popular in 1980s film theory, has long since lost its lustre. Even a cursory foray into contemporary film studies should alert the reader to the sophisticated and nuanced understandings of embodied cinematic experience developed over decades, and the need for an interdisciplinary awareness in any investigation of the reception of the moving image in the museum space (Barker 2009;Marks 1999;Rutherford 2011;Sobchack 1992). Even so, the differences between embodied cinema spectatorship and the different kind of physicality of the viewer of installation work challenge the ways the embodied spectatorship of cinema has been theorized by film scholars, demanding a rethinking and clarification of these insights.…”
Section: Introduction: Cinema Studies and Moving Image Installationmentioning
confidence: 99%