Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:30:45.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Three Ages” of Cinema Studies and the Age to Come

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Dudley Andrew
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The october 1999 job list prepared by the society for cinema studies has just appeared: fifty-one teaching positions involving film. What does it mean that only ten of these are situated in designated film programs, while thirty-six are hosted by departments of literature, primarily English? It means, among other things, that departments of literature are redefining and deregulating themselves. They may have cautiously welcomed film for a half century but hardly at this scale: fifty-one open positions suggest hundreds of positions permanently in place and thousands of students studying this subject each year. The confidence the humanities shows in this field is shared by most of my students, who are younger than cinema studies and must sense it to be, if not august, at least well established, rather as English seemed when I majored in it and assumed it to be as old as England. However, any census of course catalogs reveals cinema's uncertain location and function from campus to campus, posing questions of general expectations and standards—indeed, putting in question the definition of cinema studies. Evidently universities want to offer film. Bravo! But in what manner and for what purpose? What “qualifies” the hundreds of applicants applying for these fifty-one positions? Where did they gain their expertise or self-confidence?

Type
The Changing Profession
Information
PMLA , Volume 115 , Issue 3 , May 2000 , pp. 341 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Allen, Robert, and Gomery, Douglas Film History: Theory and Practice. New York: Knopf, 1985.Google Scholar
Andrew, Dudley “Appraising French Images.” Wide Angle 16.3 (1995): 53–66.Google Scholar
Andrew, Dudley “Film and Power at the University.” Quarterly Review of Film Studies 1.4 (1976): 417–41.Google Scholar
Andrew, Dudley “Jonah Is 25 at Last.” Assaph Kolnoa: Studies in Cinema and Television 2 (2000).Google Scholar
Andrew, Dudley The Major Film Theories. New York: Oxford UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Andrew, Dudley Mists of Regret: Culture and Sensibility in Classic French Film. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1995.Google Scholar
Baudry, Jean-Louis “The Apparatus.” Narrative. Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader. Ed. Rosen, Philip. New York: Columbia UP, 1986. 299–319.Google Scholar
Bordwell, David “Contemporary Film Studies and the Vicissitudes of Grand Theory.” Post-theory: Reconstructing Film Studies. Ed. Bordwell and Carroll, Noel. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1996. 3–36.Google Scholar
Comolli, Jean-Louis “Technique and Ideology.” Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader. Ed. Rosen, Philip. New York: Columbia UP, 1986. 421–42.Google Scholar
Doane, Mary Ann “The Object of Theory.” “Film and Media Theories.” Soc. for Cinema Studies convention. Boca Raton. 15 Apr. 1999.Google Scholar
Dyer, Richard. Introduction. The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. Hill, John. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. 3–10.Google Scholar
Gledhill, Christine, and Williams, Linda, eds Reinventing Film Studies. London: Arnold, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Heath, Stephen “Narrative Space.” Screen 17.3 (1976): 68–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, Fredric Postmodernism; or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Jauss, Hans Robert Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1982.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Modern French Thought. Berkeley: U of California P, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinger, Barbara Melodrama and Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1995.Google Scholar
Metz, Christian “Current Problems of Film Theory.” Trans. Diana Matias. Screen 14.1-2 (1973): 40–88.Google Scholar
Metz, Christian Essais sur la signification du cinéma. Vol. 2. Paris: Klincksieck, 1972.Google Scholar
Metz, Christian “Une étape dans la réflexion sur le cinéma.” Metz, Essais 13–34.Google Scholar
Metz, Christian Language and Cinema. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.Google Scholar
Metz, Christian “Problèmes actuels de théorie du cinéma.” Metz, Essais 35–86.Google Scholar
Mitry, Jean The Aesthetics and Psychology of Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1997.Google Scholar
Mulvey, Laura “Visual Pleasure in the Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16.3 (1975): 6–18.10.1093/screen/16.3.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, James How to Read a Film. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.Google Scholar
“Moviegoer. The (2000).” The Internet Movie Database. 1 May 1999. 9 Mar. 2000 <http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120761>. Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Motion Picture Art.” The Writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. Vol. 2. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1974. 53–60..+Sartre,+Jean-Paul.+“Motion+Picture+Art.”+The+Writings+of+Jean-Paul+Sartre.+Vol.+2.+Evanston:+Northwestern+UP,+1974.+53–60.>Google Scholar
Tacchella, Jean-Charles. Appendix André Bazin. By Dudley Andrew. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. 237–23.Google Scholar
Wollen, Peter Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. Rev. ed. London: Seeker, 1972.Google Scholar
Zielinski, Siegfried Audiovisions: Cinema and Television as Entr'actes in History. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar