Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 23 items for :

  • "Jacques Rancière" x
  • Manchester Film and Media Studies x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
Abstract only

Laurent Cantet is of one France’s leading contemporary directors. He probes the evolution and fault-lines of contemporary society from the home to the workplace and from the Republican school to globalized consumption more acutely than perhaps any other French film-maker. His films always challenge his characters’ assumptions about their world. But they also make their spectators rethink their position in relation to what they see. This is what makes Cantet such an important film-maker, the book argues. It explores Cantet’s unique working ‘method,’ his use of amateur actors and attempt to develop an egalitarian authorship that allows other voices to be heard rather than subsumed. It discusses his way of constructing films at the uneasy interface of the individual, the group and the broader social context and his recourse to melodramatic strategies and moments of shame to force social tensions into view. It shows how the roots of the well-known later films can be found in his early works. It explores the major fictions from Ressources humaines to the recent Foxfire, Confessions of a Girl Gang. It combines careful close analysis with attention to broader cinematic, social and political contexts while drawing on a range of important theorists from Pierre Bourdieu to Jacques Rancière, Michael Bakhtin and Mary Ann Doane. It concludes by examining how, resolutely contemporary of the current moment, Cantet helps us rethink the possibilities and limits of political cinema in a context in which old resistances have fallen silent and new forms of protest are only emergent.

Abstract only
Theories of filmic reality
Author: Richard Rushton

In formulating a notion of filmic reality, this book offers a novel way of understanding our relationship with cinema. It argues that cinema need not be understood in terms of its capacities to refer to, reproduce or represent reality, but should be understood in terms of the kinds of realities it has the ability to create. The book investigates filmic reality by way of six key film theorists: André Bazin, Christian Metz, Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Slavoj Žižek and Jacques Rancière. In doing so, it provides comprehensive introductions to each of these thinkers, while also debunking many myths and misconceptions about them. Along the way, a notion of filmic reality is formed that radically reconfigures our understanding of cinema.

Richard Rushton

7  Filmic reality and the aesthetic regime  9  Some things to do: The Far Country (Anthony Mann, 1954) W hat contribution does the philosopher Jacques Rancière make to an understanding of filmic reality? While Rancière’s approach to cinema, and to aesthetics more generally, is strategically ambivalent – he is a philosopher who is not keen to ‘take sides’ in specific debates (see Rancière 2009: 21) – that ambivalence raises questions worth considering for the notion of filmic reality. Rancière is at his most confident when describing what cinema is not, and his

in The reality of film
Marcia Landy

reconsideration. Since the films’ uses of history were a prominent feature of their representational strategies, my object in this chapter is to examine how cinema appropriates the past so as to recognise ‘the power it holds from its shameful kinship with the makers of history and the tellers of stories’, in Jacques Rancière’s words. 12 Therefore in the films that I have chosen to discuss I probe their kinship

in Medieval film
Abstract only
Sam Rohdie

of earlier Godard films. Jacques Rancière in an essay on Histoire(s) points to what he calls the central paradox of the film, namely the assertion by Godard that the cinema failed to live up to its vocation of documenting the real of the death camps and by such inaction betrayed itself, whereas Histoire(s) has, on the contrary, realised what it says the cinema has not been able to do. This apparent paradox belongs to a more comprehensive one, namely the position taken by Histoire(s) that the cinema, in not living up to its duties and the historical task of filming

in Film modernism
Clare Woodford

exemplarity to remind us that, for moral perfectionism, the act of interpreting is prioritized over the interpretation. By, then, reading this claim alongside the work of Jacques Rancière, I will emphasize his claim that spectators are always already engaged in such interpretation, but too often do not trust the legitimacy or authority of their own interpretation over that of others

in Cinema, democracy and perfectionism
Abstract only
Epstein at the crossroads
Christophe Wall-Romana

political terms as we will see. Meanwhile, thinkers of the cinema as diverse as Edgar Morin, Jean Mitry, and Siegfried Kracauer in the 1950s and 1960s, and Gilles Deleuze, Jean-Luc Godard, and Jacques Rancière in the 1980s and 1990s, have uniformly recognized in Jean Epstein both a remarkable filmmaker and among the first committed philosophical thinkers of cinema (see chapter 6). The time has come to take these influential figures at their word and give Epstein the critical appraisal that has been so long in coming. For his double attainment – as key director and

in Jean Epstein
Sarah Turner’s Perestroika
Kim Knowles

experience of it. In Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s theory of perception, this equates to a form of reversibility: ‘the look […] envelops, palpitates, espouses the visible things’. 31 By opening up these tangible interstices, Perestroika ’s formal approach activates a tactile reading. For Turner, as for Jacques Rancière, ‘[t]houghts and things, exterior and interior, are captured in the same texture, in which the sensible and the intelligible remain undistinguished’. 32 Inter-subjectivity and intermediality combine to carve out multiple spaces between, with the former

in British art cinema
Abstract only
On the reality of film
Richard Rushton

between illusion and reality – that this book argues. The remaining six chapters of the book try to posit various ways of going beyond political modernism and its logic of illusion versus reality in the cinema. Each chapter focuses on the work of a specific film theorist, so that there are chapters on André Bazin, Christian Metz, Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Slavoj Žižek and Jacques Rancière. What pans out, I think, is less a singular, pointed and specific theory of what filmic reality is and more of a sense that what I mean by filmic reality is an attitude one takes

in The reality of film
Open Access (free)
Joshua Foa Dienstag

. Although the immediate focus of the essay is M. Cavell, the larger target is the general Enlightenment position, revived today in more than one quarter (e.g., William Connolly, Richard Rorty, Robert Pippin, Jacques Rancière) that popular film can serve to instruct us in democracy. Indeed, perhaps here is the place to re-emphasize that I criticize Cavell not because I think he is the

in Cinema, democracy and perfectionism