| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 390.23 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
ABSTRACT - Metacinema is a cinephilic enterprise: whereas some film directors, bound by their urge for expression, seek to make their authorial discourse on such matters manifest; some compulsive film viewers aim to become film directors themselves. Both gladly engage with authorial enunciation, which evinces the technical and aesthetic work and choices undertaken by the film directors together with their “cinevision,” i.e., their worldview and artistic philosophy made explicit as the films’ on message(s) (or “discourse”). Taking metacinema as a practice situated in between reflexive cinema and cinema about cinema, this article defines it as simultaneously revealing the technique, including the apparatus that enables it, and the authorial discourse that voices the director’s position on his or her art. In order to better explain the four simultaneous conditions of metacinema in my own conception of it, an empirical taxonomy of hybrid films— one of the categories in a larger taxonomy I devised elsewhere—is drawn here. Thus the tautological expression of “self-reflexive metacinema,” as a deliberate thematization of this reflection, is expounded, with ample and varied examples, over a threefold enunciative taxonomy composed of three subcategories focusing on, respectively, the production stage, entailing the creative work of the filmmakers; the reception stage, illustrating the emotional and physiological response of the viewers; and a well-balanced comingling of these two stages. Through this categorization, it will become obvious that metafilms are the essence of metacinema, because in them the artists look foremost for the materiality of expression whereby they find themselves.
Description
Erratum:
The published version contains the following typos.
• Section “Self-Reflexivity as the Height of Metacinema”, paragraph 22: please read ‘metacinematic reflexivity’, ‘I make no distinction’, and ‘metafilms’
• Section “An Enunciative Taxonomy of Hybrid Metafilms”, paragraph 24: please read ‘the importance creators have’; paragraph 27, please read ‘analogical photography’; paragraph 29, please read ‘does not originate the same way’; paragraph 31, please read ‘proves to be too violent’; paragraph 32, please read ‘intradiegetic’; paragraph 36, please read ‘photogram’ (twice), ‘addresses…to’
Keywords
Metacinema Authorial discourse Self-reflexivity Hybrid films Taxonomy Enunciation Cinephilia Cinevision