Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema Benedict Morrison full chapter instant download

Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema
Benedict Morrison
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/complicating-articulation-in-art-cinema-benedict-morri
son/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Marie Benedict Historical Fiction Bundle Marie Benedict
https://ebookmass.com/product/marie-benedict-historical-fiction-
bundle-marie-benedict/
The Mystery of Mrs. Christie Marie Benedict [Benedict
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-mystery-of-mrs-christie-marie-
benedict-benedict/
The Only Woman in the Room Marie Benedict
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-only-woman-in-the-room-marie-
benedict/
Lady Clementine Marie Benedict
https://ebookmass.com/product/lady-clementine-marie-benedict-2/
https://ebookmass.com/product/lady-clementine-marie-benedict/
https://ebookmass.com/product/lady-clementine-marie-benedict-3/
Explorations in Cinema through Classical Indian

Theories: New Interpretations of Meaning, Aesthetics,
and Art 1st ed. 2020 Edition Gopalan Mullik
https://ebookmass.com/product/explorations-in-cinema-through-
classical-indian-theories-new-interpretations-of-meaning-
aesthetics-and-art-1st-ed-2020-edition-gopalan-mullik/
The Child in British Cinema Matthew Smith
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-child-in-british-cinema-
matthew-smith/
Her Hidden Genius Marie Benedict
https://ebookmass.com/product/her-hidden-genius-marie-benedict/
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 11/08/21, SPi
OX F O R D E N G L I SH M O N O G R A P H S
General Editors
R O S BA L L A ST E R
PAU L I NA K EW E S
L AU R A M A R C U S
H E AT H E R O’ D O N O G H U E
M AT T H EW R EY N O L D S
F IO NA S TA F F O R D
Complicating
Articulation in
Art Cinema
B E N E D IC T M O R R I S O N
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Benedict Morrison 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021940257
ISBN 978–0–19–289406–9
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894069.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
List of Figures ix
Introduction: Articulating Art Cinema 1

The Many Faces of Film Articulation 1
Cinema’s Forms of Articulation 2
The Critical State of Art Cinema 8
Eccentric Inarticulacy 20
Critical Eccentricity 25
The Articulated Structure of this Book 28
1. Articulation in Ruins: Complicating Style in Germania anno zero 31
At Point Zero: Mise en Scène and the Ruins of Meaning 31
Ironic Causation: Manifold Explanation in Eccentric Play 36
Between Styles: The Synthesis of Realism and Formativism? 42
In Place of Meaning: The Ethics of Inarticulacy 52
2. Telling Tales: Complicating Narration in Journal d’un curé
de campagne 56
The Diary’s Order Established 56
The Diary’s Order Challenged 63
The Diary’s Withdrawal from Time and Place 70
The Diary as Consolation 73
3. Untidying the Image: Complicating Editing in Belle de Jour 79
Cuts in the Film 79
Cuts in the Mind 82
A Surfeit of Significance 90
A Polluted Logic 93
An Irruption of Order 96
The Box Bursts Open 100
4. Queering Articulation: Complicating Bricolage in The Long
Day Closes 105
Post-traumatic Articulation 105
Bricolaged Echoes in the Silence 108
Cultural Articulations 111
Radical Recontextualizations in The Long Day Closes 113
Inarticulate Character 116
Queering Inarticulacy 119
Silent Characters without Beginning and End 124
vi Contents
5. The Technology of Articulation: Complicating Intermedia in

The Pillow Book 128
Losing Your Voice: Revenge in Place of Character 128
Dismembered Forms and the Inarticulate Body 131
Piles of Old Bones 134
Spinning Axes 139
Flattening Positions 143
Skin Deep 146
6. Indecipherable Lostness: Complicating Genre in Meek’s Cutoff 153
Articulating Genre 153
Meaning Cut Off 158
Getting Lost in the Western 162
Unstable Signifiers 164
The Threat of the Meaningless 168
Cultural Exchange 171
The Unknowing of Genre 174
Conclusion 180
The Haunted Cinema 180
Rhizomatic Structures 181
The Mythic Critic 183
Filmography 187
Bibliography 191
Index 201
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Andrew Klevan for his dedicated and generous supervision
of the DPhil thesis of which this is a revised version. Without his constant sup-
port and inspirational friendship, this book would certainly not have been pos
sible. I am grateful to the members of the Faculty of English at the University of
Oxford for their encouragement and advice. I am especially appreciative of the
kindness shown to me by Laura Marcus, who was always willing to discuss my
ideas; she and Ian Garwood, who together examined my thesis, offered sugges-
tions for improvement which have made a tremendous contribution to the subse-
quent revisions. Members of Merton College at the University of Oxford, and
Richard McCabe and Simon Jones in particular, provided friendship and encour-
agement while I completed my DPhil studies. I would also like to extend my
thanks to the AHRC, whose financial assistance made this research possible. I am
thankful to Eleanor Collins at Oxford University Press for her support in prepar-
ing this monograph for publication, and the anonymous readers of the draft
manuscripts, whose advice has helped me greatly.
My colleagues at the University of Exeter have been unstinting with their time,
expertise, and affection while I have been working on this book. I can think of no
finer place to work and no more exhilarating a group of academics to work
amongst. Angelique Richardson, Peter Riley, Debra Ramsay, and Ranita Chatterjee
have been especially generous in their support. I would also like to thank my
undergraduate and postgraduate students for the stimulating discussions that
have significantly contributed to my developing ideas.
Part of Chapter 4 appeared as ‘Inarticulate Lives: A Reading of the Opening to
Terence Davies’ The Long Day Closes’, in Movie: A Journal of Film Criticism 8 (2019),
7–13. Part of Chapter 5 appeared as ‘Dismembered Frames: Dialectic Intermedia
in Peter Greenaway’s The Pillow Book’ in Open Screens 3(1):6 (2020), 1–31. I am
grateful to the editors of both journals for allowing me to reproduce the material
in revised form.
I offer my love and gratitude, as always, to my mother and father, my sister
Emily, and my friends Marco Alessi, Hannah Croft, Nathan Ellis, Victor Fedyashov,
Jorge Gonzalo, Derek Hollman, Alexander Karlberg, Anne Kelly, Kate Leadbetter,
Harrison Pearce, Miranda Pountney, Benji Walters, Sebastian Wedler, Harriet
Wragg, Jordy, Oscar, Princess, and Teddy. They have all helped to transform my
analysis and argument for the better. I owe an especial debt to my partner Andrzej
whose brilliance has shaped and sharpened my work and to whom I dedicate this
book with much love.
List of Figures
1.1 The cinema of impoverishment in Germania anno zero48

1.2 Pietà amongst ruins in Germania anno zero51
2.1 The disordered world of Journal d’un curé de campagne60
2.2 Inarticulate transitions in Journal d’un curé de campagne74
3.1 Symbolic surfeit in Belle de Jour86
3.2 Shades of surrealism in Belle de Jour99
4.1 Bricolaged silence in The Long Day Closes107
4.2 Staged homoeroticism in The Long Day Closes125
5.1 Fluid distinctions in The Pillow Book137
5.2 Montage as collage in The Pillow Book140
6.1 The illegible landscape of Meek’s Cutoff166
6.2 Unreadable glyphs in Meek’s Cutoff171
Introduction
Articulating Art Cinema
The Many Faces of Film Articulation
Film articulation is a delicate balancing act between the two everyday senses of
the word: clear expression and the multi-partedness of a jointed structure. As an
articulated medium, film follows the structural linguistics model of articulation
as the operation of several, separable parts of an utterance working together to
create a text’s meanings. Classical narrative cinema has responded to the demands
of this balancing act by privileging clear expression over multi-partedness; multi-
jointed form—comprising multiple signifiers recorded in multiple shots and
sounds on multiple linked pieces of filmstrip—is disavowed as the celluloid frag-
ments are seamlessly stitched together in a cinema which denies its own discon
tinuities. Critics and viewers are more likely to note (and celebrate) a film’s clear
expression of character, theme, or story than the disjunctions of its transitions.
The seamless formal continuity of classical cinema is often matched by a fluency
of spoken dialogue, which largely abandons the banalities of small talk and fillers
and devotes itself to the revelation of character. In both form and character-
content, such a cinema privileges clear expression over the intimation of multi-
parted form.
Such cooperation, however, is not guaranteed, and clearly expressed meaning
can be complicated if the joints of cinematic structure are allowed to creak. Some
films do not smooth their transitions, and instead make them visible and audible
as the stuttering convulsions of an articulation that sets the expression of its own
multi-partedness above clear meaning. This book is particularly interested in
films that combine this self-reflexive foregrounding of formal discontinuity with
characters who struggle to speak. Such a combination is often a feature of the
cinematic mode referred to critically as art cinema. Film criticism has been keen
to find a way to account for these formal and character complications, and it has
often done so by justifying disjunctive form and inarticulate character as sympa-
thetic expressions of one another. According to this approach, form explains
character and character explains form in a kind of critical Mobius strip that
reduces two sides to one. Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema argues that this
Mobius strip has, in fact, all the illogic of an Escher drawing, and that criticism
has been over-hasty in identifying a sympathetic balance between complicated
form and inarticulate character. This is a study of the productive breakdown in
sympathy between form and character and criticism.
Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema. Benedict Morrison, Oxford University Press. © Benedict Morrison 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894069.003.0001
2 Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema
Cinema’s Forms of Articulation
As Gilberto Perez suggests, ‘[f]ilm is an art of fragments, but of fragments pieced

together, parts put together to make a whole.’1 The articulated relationship
between the multiple ‘fragments’ and the meaningful (‘whole’) text has been of
central concern in the historic development of both film practice and film theory.
In classical narrative cinema, in order to discipline these parts into wholes, the
joints (or transitions) between the elements, each of which could be an interrup-
tion of linear meaning, is controlled; Stephen Heath describes a series of ‘compos
itional rules for spatial clarity and continuity’, in which ‘continuity as smoothness
in transitions . . . [is] fully continuous, reconstitutive.’2 Continuity of meaning is
made possible by seamlessness of articulation. However, as every film is articu-
lated—that is, made up of connected fragments—every film faces the constant
danger of dissolving into its constitutive parts. The transitions—albeit smoothed
and conventionalized in much narrative cinema—stubbornly remain transitions;
a cut, even allowing for careful temporal and spatial matching, remains an inter-
ruption in the linear movement of the film image.3 As with any material, a well-
stitched film might still rip at the seams. Noël Burch outlines the history of the
rules of continuity:
As the techniques for breaking down an action into shots and sequences were
developed and refined, these continuity rules became more and more firmly fixed,
methods ensuring that they would be respected were perfected, and their
underlying aim, to make any transition between two shots that were spatially con-
tinuous or in close proximity imperceptible, became increasingly apparent . . . [This]
soon resulted in what we might call the zero point of cinematic style.4
Cinema, in its dominant narrative mode has sought to make its own articulations
‘imperceptible’ by adopting rules designed to ensure that the medium succeeds in
creating (narrative, perceptual, ideological) coherence despite its multi-
partedness. Continuity editing is an articulated form that arranges contiguous
fragments in a linear sequence in which progress from one fragment to the next is
1 Gilberto Perez, The Material Ghost: Films and the Medium (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1998), 303.
2 Stephen Heath, Questions of Cinema (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1981),
16 and 17.
3 A further foundational discontinuity is disavowed at the level of the film image’s illusion of
motion. This discontinuity arises in the black space between the filmstrip’s static images. Jean-Louis
Baudry argues that ‘the mechanical apparatus both selects the minimal difference and represses it in
projection, so that meaning can be constituted: it is at once direction, continuity, movement’ (Jean-
Louis Baudry, ‘Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus’, in Film Quarterly 28, no. 2
[Winter 1974–5]: 43). While offering significant opportunities for further reflection, this disavowal is
not the focus of this present study.
4 Noël Burch, Theory of Film Practice (London: Secker and Warburg, 1973), 11.
Introduction 3
defined by a smooth seamlessness and meaning appears immanent. Roland

Barthes suggests that this veiling over of discontinuity by seeming-continuity is
fundamental to all articulation; while ‘meaning can arise only from an articula
tion’ of contiguous signs, it must, nevertheless, also be ‘at the same time continu-
ous’, compensating for the fact that continuous phenomena (such as the ‘spectrum
of the colours’) are ‘verbally reduced to a series of discontinuous terms’.5
Expression, then, is the disavowal of linguistic discontinuities in an attempt to
reclaim the perceived continuities of the real world. Trevor Whittock argues that
this process responds to a fundamental need:
Art aims to satisfy this need by offering us symbolic works in which comprehen-
sive design reigns. For the artist the achievement of that comprehensive design
is everything. This credo will often incorporate the view that art celebrates af
fi n
ities and synchronicities, chords and correspondences beyond the grasp of logic,
and in so doing answers to our deepest yearnings for and intimations of
wholeness.6
The seamless articulation of classical film form may be contrasted with the dia
lectic articulation of Soviet montage (which David Bordwell discriminates as a
‘historical materialist’ mode).7 Marie-Claire Ropars considers Eisenstein’s Soviet
montage to be an example of film écriture, in which meaning is set in play by the
aporia of disjunctive form:
[C]inematographic making, without which cinema is merely technology, can

only subscribe to the combinatory method by a choice of editing: there can be
no film without an investment in one mode of articulation that will bind the
becoming-filmic of this heterogeneous plurality, from shot to shot, track to
track. If continuity in the sequence of movements and convergence in the rela-
tion of sight and speech support narrative unification in hybrid cinema, another
current, inverse and recurrent, has speculated on the power of temporal and
spatial disjunction inherent in the initiation of a free montage: the clash between
shots lacking the links that reduce discontinuity, the divergent simultaneity of
visual and verbal sequences are at the heart of experimentation from Eisenstein
to Resnais.8
5 Roland Barthes, Elements of Semiology, trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith (London: Jonathan
Cape, 1967), 64.
6 Trevor Whittock, Metaphor and Film (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 107.
7 David Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press,
1985), 234–73.
8 Marie-Claire Ropars, ‘On Filmic Rewriting: Contamination of the Arts or Destruction of Art’s
Identity,’ in Porous Boundaries: Texts and Images in Twentieth-Century French Culture, ed. Jerôme
Game, trans. Malcolm Philips (Pieterlen: Peter Lang Publishing Group, 2007), 5.
In her discussion of aesthetic synthesis, Ropars employs a post-structuralist

vocabulary to discuss this destabilizing effect, in which ‘totalisation disappears in
the originary attraction of a shifting and multiple relation which replaces syn-
cretic unification with an explosive différance.’9 Eisenstein’s experimentation,
however, was not dedicated to the différance of discontinuous form. His dialectic
articulation makes the articulated joints of its form visible, even uncomfortable,
in order to produce intellectual syntheses. Sergei Eisenstein’s 1929 essay
‘A Dialectic Approach to Film Form’ developed the idea that film, both formally
and diegetically, operates according to a dialectic model. The objective of any
film, the essay suggests, is to communicate meaning through the violent synthesis
of conceptual units by:
the conflict of two pieces in opposition to each other. By conflict . . . A view that
from the collision of two given factors arises a concept.10
Both ‘the collision of individual shots’ and ‘conflict’ within cause-and-effect nar-
rative establish abstracts in opposition with succeeding negatives, resolved ultim
ately in conclusive conceptual concretes.11 This dialectic structure—operating at
the level of both form and narrative—has a teleological goal: meaningful articula
tion. This putting together of fragments into a totality characterizes the utopian
dialectic hermeneutic act. Intellectual montage is the preeminent form of dia
lectic articulation, theorized by Pudovkin as ‘the combination of those pieces’ of
cut celluloid into meaning through editing.12 The sequence of successive shots,
described by Christian Metz as ‘the filmic chain’, forms ‘a sort of articulation of
the reality shown on the screen . . . It is well known that the nature of cinema is to
transform the world into discourse.’13
Dialectic articulation does not observe the classical rules of continuity which
are designed to efface the possible and dangerous tensions of partedness. Despite
this, the idea of immanent meaning remains in place; each montage sequence
promises to produce ‘an organic embodiment of a single idea conception, embra
cing all elements, parts, details of the film-work’.14 Burch discusses this process as
a kind of linear simultaneity, like a dismembered cubist painting played through
time. He argues that meaning:
9 Ropars (2007), 5.
10 Sergei Eisenstein, Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, trans. Jay Leda (New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World, 1949), 37.
11 Eisenstein (1949), 49 and 46. Georg Hegel prefers this terminology, rather than
thesis—synthesis—antithesis.
12 Quoted in Noël Carroll, The Philosophy of Motion Pictures (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 103.
13 Christian Metz, Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 1974), 106 and 115.
14 Eisenstein (1949), 254.
Introduction 5
exists only in terms of the totality of shots included in the sequence; we no

longer have any sense of the surrounding space endowed with independent
existence from which a sequence of shots has somehow been excerpted. Rather
we see a space that exists in the same many-faceted, complex way that Braque’s
billiard table exists; we see a setting that is the sum total of all the perspectives of
it embodied in the successive shots.15
Bordwell summarizes Eisenstein’s position as the attempt to rediscover ‘unity

from a basis of fragmentation, but without concealing the fragmentation in doing
so’.16 Despite different attitudes to the question of whether or not to make articu
lation visible in their contrasting editing practices, seamless articulation and dia
lectic articulation are equally determined to produce meaningful unity from the
relationship between the film’s formal parts. Both seamless and dialectic articula
tion are centred forms, and their stable meanings rest upon notions of auteur,
narrative, and character.
Like dialectically articulated montage, art cinema often complicates seamless-
ness, and foregrounds disruptive formal gestures such as alinear narrative, pro-
lepsis and analepsis, jump cuts, and shifts in genre or mode. I argue that art
cinema’s distinct achievement is to engage a different strategy of foregrounding
these (narrative, formal, and ideological) discontinuities without necessarily
committing to a teleological notion of clear meaning. This eccentric form does not
structure itself around a stable and meaning-producing centre, and represents
more effectively Ropars’ notion of film écriture. Norman J. Holland, in one of the
earliest critical accounts of art cinema, suggests that this fragmentation and the
reality it (re)constructs are different from those of dialectic articulation; he con-
trasts the ways in which Eisenstein ‘aims to communicate his socialist and Marxist
message’ using ‘symbols [that] serve that end’ with the art filmmaker whose ‘sym-
bols serve not so much to communicate as to suggest or even to mystify.’17 This
mystification stems from the art cinematic rejection of Soviet dialectic, and a use,
instead, of a negative dialectic form, in which colliding elements continue to
interact intellectually but refuse to produce a synthesis. This complicated articula
tion produces narratives in which coincidence, combination, and correlation
dominate, and causation is denied or at least queried; as Bert Cardullo says, ‘one
event follows another but is not caused by it.’18
Formally, the joints of an art film’s articulated structure become more than
transitional points between fragments. They become conceptual spaces in which
15 Burch (1973), 39.

16 David Bordwell, On the History of Film Style (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 88.
17 Norman J. Holland, ‘The Puzzling Movies: Their Appeal’, in The Journal of the Society of
Cinematologists 3 (1963): 18.
18 Bert Cardullo, ‘Art-House Cinema, Avant-Garde Film, and Dramatic Modernism’, The Journal of
Aesthetic Education 45, no. 2 (2011): 5.
meaning is suspended in a state of might- be-

madeness. Quoting Giorgio
Agamben, Laura Mulvey points out that ‘[c]inema . . . is a prolonged hesitation
between image and meaning.’19 These art films become networks of such small-
scale incoherencies, each of which at least potentially interrupts meaning in the
unnavigable transitions between shots, narrative strands, modes, styles, genres. In
Ropars’ terms these are ‘[w]eak times, dead times; the important thing is “between
acts”, what is drawn out right across time and remains incomplete.’20 These transi-
tions defy meaning by both foregrounding their own existence (unlike the transi-
tions of seamless articulation, which are self-effacing) and resisting any attempt
to draw a definitive interpretation of them. Such transitions, operating outside
the hermeneutic conventions of classical cinema, may look ‘untidy’.21 Critical
accusations of untidiness are often a marker for the eccentricities of complicated
articulation.
It is tempting to respond by composing lists of formal features that contribute
to art cinema’s complicated articulation. András Bálint Kovács, expanding on
earlier critical work, includes ‘episodic structure’, ‘permanent gaps in narrative
motivation and chronology’, ‘frequent use of symbolic rather than realist linkage
of images’, ‘open-ended narratives’, ‘use of collage principle’, and ‘serial construc-
tion’ among the eccentric features of the mode.22 This book, however, does not
offer an inventory of techniques that result in complicated articulation. Such
inventories can too easily become dogmatic checklists, and the attentive close
readings of Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema make no claims to be defini-
tive. They do not even try to suggest that the techniques discussed complicate
articulation whenever and wherever they occur. I position art cinema as a trans-
gressive, anti-normative category of cinematic art which will not adhere to any set
of rules or conventions that I could possibly come up with. Nor do I suggest that
the critical term ‘art cinema’ signifies a stable genre of films that are or do any one
thing in particular. The book’s aim might more accurately be said to be a compli-
cation of the idea of art cinema. The category was discussed alongside classical
and historical-materialist cinemas by David Bordwell in his monumental 1985
study of Narration in the Fiction Film. I would like to supplement these categories
with the more openly unstable, flexible interpretative frameworks of seamless,
dialectic, and complicated articulation. Rather than categorizing whole films, this
alternative critical vocabulary allows for the more fine- tuned discussion of
unfolding sequences and moments; this is less about whole meanings or
19 Laura Mulvey, Fetishism and Curiosity: Cinema and the Mind’s Eye. 2nd ed. (London: BFI,
2013), xvii.
20 Marie- Claire Ropars, ‘A Cinematic Language’, trans. Adrian Mitchell, Esprit (June 1960):
accessed 28 June 2020, http://rouge.com.au/11/cinematic_language.html, 2.
21 Michael Wood, Belle de Jour (London: BFI, 2000), 12.
22 András Bálint Kovács, Screening Modernism: European Art Cinema, 1950–1980 (Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 2007), 61–2.
Introduction 7
identities, and more about the observation of specific local achievements. A clas
sical Hollywood production may well employ sequences of dialectic or compli-
cated articulation. Resisting essentialist taxonomies, this alternative demands
attentive close reading and the bringing into visibility of the formal practices that
are at the root of a film’s meaning-(un)making.
Complicated formal practices produce proliferating, rather than concentrat-
ing, meanings, which cannot be herded into neatly rhyming arrangements. The
complicated articulation of art cinema (unlike seamless articulation) makes vis
ible the fragmented plurality of its formal elements: multiple shots strung together
in the syntagmatic arrangements of montage, and the vertical arrangements of
multiple simultaneous expressions across the image- and soundtrack. The twin
concepts of seamlessness (that one image smoothly develops into the next) and
redundancy (that ‘sound and image should complete each other by dealing differ-
ently with the same subject, thereby expressing something not possible by one of
the media alone’) will not discipline this proliferation satisfactorily.23 Both are
disrupted by counterpoint, in which the isolated semiotic systems of plotting,
cinematography, editing, mise en scène, and sound speak across and over each
other, both complementary and contradictory.
Complicated articulation—which deconstructs the myths of seamlessness and
redundancy—generates multiple meanings out of excessive formal gestures. The
close readings of this book propose an eccentricity in which discontinuity replaces
seamlessness, and iterability replaces redundancy. Most importantly, close read-
ing of art cinema’s complicated articulation frustrates any utopian attempt to
resolve a film critically into a singular meaning. Eleftheria Thanouli argues that ‘a
minute analysis of the formal elements’ of a film allows a critical redefinition that
can better recognize ‘the rich nuances of the cinematic language . . . even if it
convinces us in the end to abandon the idea of “art cinema” as a grand narrative
paradigm once and for all.’24 This demands the careful notation of a film’s net-
works of (potentially contradictory) formal achievements.
The opposite of close reading is what Franco Moretti has referred to as distant
reading. While Moretti calls attention productively to the ways in which certain
close reading regimes can reinforce canons, he does not allow for the fact that
close reading may do the very opposite. Close reading is urgently needed in order
to show how canons—and systems more generally—are never nuanced enough to
allow for the radical instability of texts. Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema
challenges Moretti’s argument that ‘[i]f we want to understand the system in its
entirety, we must accept losing something’ when that something is ‘the text’.25
23 Jennifer O’Meara, Engaging Dialogue: Cinematic Verbalism in American Independent Cinema

(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018), 42.
24 Eleftheria Thanouli, ‘ “Art Cinema” ’ Narration Today: Breaking down a Wayward Paradigm’,
Scope 14, (June 2009): 11.
25 Franco Moretti, ‘Conjectures on World Literature’, New Left Review 1 (Jan/Feb 2000): 54.
This book is a defence of text over system, and momentary formal achievement
over whole text. I suggest that systems are often critic-led tidyings-up of complex-
ity and, like all tidyings-up, are ideological. They impose samenesses which over-
look the destabilizing differences on screens and soundtracks. What occurs on
screen is refracted through interpretation in order to produce meaning. Tom
Conley suggests that, in fact, ‘the heterogeneity of film thresholds an activity—a
pleasure—of analysis allowing spectators to rewrite and rework discourses of film
into configurations that need not be determined by what is immediately before the
eyes’ (my italics).26 This is a book that attempts to embrace the complexities
before the eyes (and ears).
The six films which are analysed in detail in this book are Germania anno zero
(Roberto Rossellini, 1948), Journal d’un curé de campagne (Robert Bresson, 1951)
Belle de Jour (Luis Buñuel, 1967), The Long Day Closes (Terence Davies, 1992),
The Pillow Book (Peter Greenaway, 1996), and Meek’s Cutoff (Kelly Reichardt,
2010). They represent a small portion of the geographical and historical range
associated with art cinema. More importantly, they represent texts which have
been both privileged and constrained by their canonical status as art cinema texts.
Burch suggests that ‘the conscious perception of form is a liberating activity.’27
This liberation is, in part, the liberation of films from these critical constraints.
The Critical State of Art Cinema
One of the advantages of escaping Bordwell’s taxonomy—classical, historical-

materialist, and art cinema—is that the last of these categories has remained
troublesomely contentious. Recognizing the term’s widespread use despite its
semantic slipperiness, Thanouli has recently described ‘art cinema’ as ‘one of the
fuzziest and yet least controversial concepts in film studies’.28 Fuzziness is central
to Miklós Kiss and Steven Willemsen’s suggestion that, despite ‘certain overlaps
and similarities’, art films ‘lack a single essence in the form of a unifying trait’.29
Rosalind Galt and Karl Schoonover seize on the flexibility of the term in their
memorable description of the mode’s ‘mongrel identity’ which conceals ‘vast dis-
parities in form, style, and historical and economic context that make taxonomy
so difficult’.30 The critical consensus, if there is one, seems to be that art cinema, as
a term, is both unavoidable and extremely vague. Criticism has wrestled with the
26 Tom Conley, Film Hieroglyphs: Ruptures in Classical Cinema (Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press, 1991), xxxi.
27 Burch (1973), xix. 28 Thanouli (2009), 1.
29 Miklós Kiss and Steven Willemsen, Impossible Puzzle Films: A Cognitive Approach to
Contemporary Complex Cinema (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 145.
30 Rosalind Galt and Karl Schoonover (eds), Global Art Cinema: New Theories and Histories
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 3 and 6.
Introduction 9
term, at least since Bordwell’s seminal essay on the subject in 1979. Two broad
critical lineages developed in the 1970s and 1980s, emerging from Bordwell’s for-
malist approach and Steve Neale’s 1981 notion of ‘Art Cinema as Institution’.31
What has followed, both between and within these two lines of descent, has been
a proliferation of critical arguments concerning the loose canon of films that has
come to be called art cinema. This book seeks to offer neither a definition nor a
defence of such categorization (or its resultant canon-building). It hopes, rather,
to complicate the ways in which the mode is discussed critically.
Common to both critical lineages has been an interest in the non-normative
elements of art cinema films. The norm is defined by both Bordwell and Neale as
Hollywood, seen by the former as the producer of ‘the most historically influen-
tial classicism’ and by the latter as the epicentre of ‘American domination of
[European] indigenous markets’.32 For both theorists, though more emphasized
in Bordwell’s account, significant elements of art films’ non-normativity lie in
their formal arrangements and their treatments of character. If classical form is
defined primarily by its commitment to (narrative, formal, and ideological) con-
tinuity, art cinema has come to be associated more with ideas of discontinuity.
Kovács describes continuity and discontinuity as ‘the two basic alternatives of
stylistic forms in the cinema’.33 While the two poles of continuity and discontinu
ity are fundamental to art cinema (and to this book), the suggestion of simple
choice between them is misleading. All film is discontinuous, and the distinction
is between those films (or sequences within them) that foreground this discon
tinuity and those that do not. Kovács acknowledges this in his description of ‘the
temporal and fragmented nature of film technique’ as ‘a film is put together with
independent fragments of time sequences.’34 Complicated articulation, which I
associate especially with films traditionally classified as art cinema, consists pre-
cisely of this discontinuous formal fragmentation.
Art cinema’s discontinuities are most readily understandable in contrast to the
predominantly seamless articulations of classical film. In relation to Hollywood
continuity, Heath argues that:
one of the narrative acts of a film is the creation of space, but what gives the
moving space its coherence in time, decides the metonymy as a ‘taking place’, is
here ‘the narrative itself ’, and above all as it crystallizes round character as look
and point of view.35
31 See David Bordwell, ‘The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice’, Film Criticism 4, no. 1 (1979):
56–64 and Steve Neale, ‘Art Cinema as Institution’, Screen 22, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 11–39.
32 Bordwell (1985), 156 and Neale (1981), 11. 33 Kovács (2007), 124.
34 Kovács (2007), 124. 35 Heath (1981), 19.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
INDEX
Abortion caused by lead, 35
Absorption of lead: cutaneous, 25; from lung, 23; gastric, 19;
intestinal, 21, 22; in liver, 24; mechanism of, 20; prevention
of, from stomach, 23
Accumulators. See Electric accumulators
Acetate of lead, poisoning by, 94
Acetic acid, solvent action of, on lead oxide, 15
Acid lemonade, 185
Acidity, gastric contents, 15
Action of lead: on gold and silver, 3; on water, 3
Acute encephalopathy, 54, 95
Acute lead poisoning, 110, 111
Acute nephritis, 60, 131
Aerographing, 272, 280
Ætiology of lead poisoning, 7
Age as affecting lead poisoning, 35, 239
Akremnin soap, 238
Albuminate of lead, preparation of, 17
Albuminuria, 128
Albuminuric retinitis, 160
Alcohol: as predisposing cause, 37, 64; gastritis and plumbism,
64; in experimental poisoning, 85; similar effect to lead on
kidney, 131
Alteration in blood-corpuscles in lead anæmia, 133
Alternation of employment, 34, 251
Amaurosis, 70, 160
Amblyopia, 76
Amenorrhœa, 36
Anæmia, 39, 112, 132, 136, 227; treatment of, 190
Anemometers, 219
Antibrachial paralysis, 144, 148
Antimony, effect of, on lead fume, 199
Appointed surgeon, 112, 221
Aran-Duchenne paralysis, 149
Armit, nickel poisoning, 11
Arsenic: Cloetta’s experiments, 24; excretion of, in fæces, 24
Arterio-sclerosis, 116
Arthralgia, 50, 161
Arthritis, 40
Artificial gastric juice, action of, 17
Atrophic nerve changes, 69
Attack rate from lead poisoning (table), 55
Autopsy, points to be noted in, 162
Bacup epidemic, 4
Basophile granules, 77, 133, 135, 179
Baths, 238
Blood: action of lead salts on, 2; in lead poisoning, 70, 78, 134,
179; pressure, 116, 180; vessels, 68, 70, 75
Blue line, 122, 123, 128, 226; experimental production of, 41,
124; from diachylon, 13
Brachial paralysis, 148
Brain, analysis of, 96
Brass, presence of lead in, 263
Brassworkers and plumbism, 51, 263
Breathing experiments, 81
Bright’s disease and lead poisoning, 60
Burtonian line. See Blue line
Carbon in lung, 11
Card system, use of, 186
Central nervous system, 69, 157; treatment, 196
Cerebral symptoms, 51, 157
Certifying surgeons, reports of, 45, 221
Chandelier fitters, poisoning among, 264
Channels of lead absorption, 8
Chemical analysis of brain, 95
Chemical characters of lead salts, 4
Chemical diagnosis, 166
Chemical examination of organs, 163
Chemistry of lead, 2
Choroidal atrophy, 161
Chromate of lead in yarn-dyeing, 298
Chrome colours, 287
Chronic colic, 119
Circulatory system, 75, 137
Cirrhosis of kidney, 74
Coach-painting, 288; dust in atmosphere breathed, 205;
leadless paints, 290; reported cases from, 289; sandpapering
in, 289
Colic, 116, 117, 118, 119, 188, 190; differential diagnosis, 188;
treatment of, 187
Colloidal lead, 5
Colon, palpation of, 126
Colours, 285
Comparative mortality, 59
Conjunctiva in lead anæmia, 132
Constipation, 115
Copper extraction, plumbism in, 246
Cutaneous absorption, 25
Death certificates in plumbism, 57
Degeneration of blood vessels, 68
Determination of lead in urine, 169
Diachylon, 13
Diagnosis: from chemical analysis, 166; of lead colic, 120, 188
Diarrhœa, 115
Differential count in lead anæmia, 134, 137, 180
Digestion experiments, 16, 17
Drink for lead-workers, 186
Drugs in lead colic, 189
Duration of employment and plumbism, 52
Dust, lead: amount of, in air breathed, 199, 207; chief cause of
plumbism, 10; “laying,” difficulties of, 11; rate of settling, 7;
respirators for, 207
Dysmenorrhœa, 36
Earthenware: and china, 270; attack rate, 56; decorative
processes, 272; dust in atmosphere, 204, 206; glaze
processes, 272; leadless glaze, 274; low solubility glaze, 274;
Potteries Committee on, recommendations of, 275; reported
cases in (table), 271
Electric accumulators, 281; reported plumbism in, 283;
ventilation in, 216
Electrical reactions, 151, 153, 154
Electrical treatment, 194
Electro-chemical tests, 168
Electrolytic estimation of lead, 174; reactions, 5
Enamelling (vitreous), 278; aerographing in, 280; use of
leadless colours in, 278
Encephalitis, case of chronic, 71
Encephalopathy, 54, 68, 71, 157
Estimation of lead: in digestion, difficulties of, 18; in urine, 169,
170, 175
Excretion: of arsenic, 24; of lead salts, 32, 127, 128
Excretory system, 72
Exhaust ventilation. See Ventilation
Experimental lead poisoning: pathology of, 81; post-mortem
findings, 91; symptoms, 69, 89, 103
Experimental arsenic poisoning, 24
Experimental results, summary, 104
Eye changes, 76, 150, 158
Facial nerve, paralysis of, 195
Fæces: examination for lead in, 182; lead in, 32, 64
Family susceptibility, 30
Fans. See Ventilation
Faradism for paralysis, 195
File-cutting, 256; atrophy of muscles in, 52, 257; reported cases
in, 258
File-hardening, 258; lead fume from, 200, 201; use of fused
metallic salts for, 258
Forms of paralysis, 54, 142
Fritted lead: action of water on, 89; poisoning, 34, 97; solubility
test, 14
Fume (lead) in atmosphere breathed, 198, 207
Gastric absorption, 19, 21, 22
Gastric digestion, artificial, 17
Gastric juice, action on lead salts, 15, 16
Gastritis in plumbism, 65
Gastro-intestinal absorption, 12, 13, 64
Generalized paralysis, 151
Glass-cutting, 283
Glaze, 272; leadless, 274; low solubility, 274
Gout, 38
Hæmatoporphyrin, 180, 182
Hæmoglobin, 113, 132
Hæmorrhages in plumbism, 76
Hæmostatic action of lead salts, 2
Hair lotions, poisoning from, 13
Harness furniture, tinning of, 259
Headache, 120
Health Register, 228
Heart, 139, 193
Heart symptoms, 193
Heat, exhaust by, 208
Histological examination of lead tissues, 163, 176
Histology: of experimental poisoning, 92; of nervous system, 67
House-painting, 291; regulations for, 293; reported plumbism in,
291
Hunter, John, “dry bellyache” from rum, 1
Hyperæsthesia, 161
Immunity, 27, 29, 113
Incipient symptoms, 112, 222
India-rubber, manufacture of, 301
Inhalation experiments (table), 101
Inoculation experiments, 83, 88, 99
Instruction of worker, 240
Interstitial nephritis, 130
Intestinal absorption, 22, 94
Intestinal staining, 21, 94, 125
Iodine in plumbism, 192
Ionization in paralysis, 195
Iron drums, tinning of, 260
Italians and lead poisoning, 30
Kidney: changes, 73, 74, 129; excretion of lead by, 128;
interstitial hæmorrhages, 130
Lactic acid, solvent action of, 15
Large intestine and lead absorption, 21
Lavatories, 235, 238
Lead: compounds, 7; fume and dust in atmosphere, 198-207; in
urine, 129, 167; melting-point, 2, 199
Lead bed in file-cutting, 257
Lead burning, 262; in electric accumulators, 283
Lead chloride in tinning, 200
Lead dust: minimal toxic dose, 31, 207; rate of settling, 7; size
of particles, 12
Lead fume in tinning, 202
Lead oxide, danger from skimming, 200
Lead piping, 251
Lead poisoning: acute, 110; mortality, 57; entry of poison, 8
Lead silicate, 34
Lead smelting: and silver refining, 242; analysis of fumes in,
246; cupellation process, 246; Huntingdon-Heberlein
process, 243; in blast furnace, 243; Parkes’s process, 244;
Pattinson process, 245; reported plumbism, 248
Leadless glaze, 274
Leadless paints, 291
Lead salts: action on blood, 2; action of gastric juice on, 16, 17
Lemonade, sulphuric acid, 185
Letterpress printing. See Printing
Litharge, manufacture of, 250
Lithopone, 291, 292
Litho-transfers, 277
Liver, absorption by, 24
Loss of fat in plumbism, 112
Lumbago, 115, 192
Lung: absorption by, 98; phagocytic absorption of lead, 23
Meal-rooms, requirements of, 234
Mechanism of lead absorption, 20
Medical examination, periodical, 115, 221-229
Medical Health Register, 228
Medical practitioners and notification, 44
Melting-point of lead, 2, 199
Menorrhagia, 36
Mental symptoms, 114, 121, 158
Metallic capsules, 297
Metallic taste, 127
Micro-chemical tests, 167
Molten lead, contact with, 297
Mortality figures, 59
Motor-cars. See Coach-painting
Muscles paralyzed in experimental poisoning, 144
Muscular system, affections of, 114-161
Nephritis, 192
Nervous symptoms, 66, 67, 140; treatment, 193
Neuritis, peripheral, 66, 67
Nickel carbonyl poisoning via lung, 11
Normal lead, 33
Notification of plumbism, 44
Œdema of brain, 159
Olive oil in colic, 189
Ophthalmoscopic examination, 160
Oral sepsis, 38
Orange chrome, 299
Organic mixtures, lead in, 173
Organic compounds of lead, 5
Organs of generation, effect on, 36
Overalls and head coverings, 230
Oxides of lead, 3, 249
Painters and lead poisoning, 107 See also House-painting
Paints: and colours, manufacture of, 285; leadless, 29, 291
Pancreatic digestion, action of, 17
Paralysis: in animals, 14; electrical reactions in, 181; forms of,
64, 66, 142; general, 151; in file-cutters, 152; insidious onset
of, 114; of special sense organs, 150; prognosis of, 197;
statistics of, 53
Parotitis, 127
Pathology of lead poisoning, 62
“Pentarcomb” exhaust, 217, 254
Peptonate of lead, 18
Peptone, solvent action of, 19
Perambulators, painting of, 290
Perihepatitis, 264
Peripheral neuritis, 266
Peritonitis, saturnine, 65
Peroneal paralysis, 149
Phagocytosis of lead particles, 20
Phthisis: in printing, 256; not a sequela, 60
Physiology of digestion, 16
Plumbing, 261
Plumbism, reported cases (1900-1909), 46, 47
Plumbo-solvency of water, 4
Porcelain enamelling, 278
Post-mortem signs, 91, 161
Potassium iodide, action of, 32, 191
Pottery. See Earthenware
Predisposing causes, 36, 42
Presaturnine state, 184
Preventive measures: age of employment, 239; baths, 238;
cloakroom, 231; exhaust ventilation, 207; floors, 240; food,
86; head coverings, 231; instruction of worker, 240; meal-
room, 234; overalls, 230; periodical examination, 221;
separation of processes, 239; washing accommodation, 235
Printing: compositors’ work, 255; linotype machine, 200, 211,
217, 253; reported cases from, 252; stereo-casting, 254;
type-casting, 252
Prodromal symptoms: of colic, 118; of paralysis, 141
Prognosis in lead poisoning, 197
Progressive spinal muscular atrophy, 68
Pulse-rate, alteration of, 76, 115, 118
Purgatives in lead colic, 188
Putty powder, 283
Pyorrhœa alveolaris as predisposing cause, 40, 124
Qualitative tests, 166
Quantitative estimation of lead, 170
Reactions of degeneration, 152
Red lead: manufacture of, 249; reported attacks in, 249
Relative toxic dose of lead compounds, 105
Repairs in factory as cause of plumbism, 10
Respirators, inefficiency of, 217
Respiratory absorption, 9
Rheumatic pains, 121, 161, 192
Safes, painting of, 290
Salivary glands and excretion of lead, 125
“Selective” action of lead on nerves, 147
Sequelæ of lead poisoning, 57, 60
Sex as affecting susceptibility, 35
Sheet lead, 241
Shipbuilding, 295; reported plumbism, 295
Shot-making, 298
Silicates of lead, 34
Silver refining. See Lead smelting
Size of particles of lead compounds, 12, 34
Skin, colour of, 132
Smelting of lead. See Lead smelting
Solar plexus, 65
Soldering, 261
Solubility: of lead salts, 5, 15, 16, 17; test for fritted lead, 14
Solvent action of peptone, 19
Spastic paraplegia, 68
Spiegeleisen, poisoning in manufacture of, 246
Spring tempering, fume from, 201, 296
Stained-glass painting, 285
Statistics of plumbism, 44, 45
Susceptibility, 27
Tape measures, painting of, 290
Tea lead, 251
Temperature in lead poisoning, 118
Tempering files, 200
Terne plates, 260
Tests for lead, 167
Tetramethyl diphenyl test, 169
Thorpe test, 275
Tiles. See Earthenware
Tinning: of hollow-ware, 259; of harness furniture, 259; of
irondrums, 260; dust in, 203; lead chloride fume in, 202-203;
repeated attacks in, 261
Tolerance of lead, 28, 113
Toxic dose: of lead acetate, 110; of lead carbonate, 110; of lead
dust, 31, 207; of fritted lead dust, 88, 97; of white-lead dust,
85
Treatment of acute lead poisoning, 111, 184
Tremor, 142, 156
Turpentine poisoning, experimental, 108
Type metal, 202
Urine: acidity, 181; chemical examination of, 180; determination
of lead in, 167; lead in, 32, 73, 169; phosphates, 181
Vaso-motor changes, 65, 76, 140
Ventilation (exhaust), 207-220; by fans, 210; by heat, 208;
composing boxes, 255; essential points, 208; in earthenware,
273; in electric accumulators, 216, 282; in enamelling, 278; in
glass-cutting, 284; in india-rubber, 302; in lead smelting, 245;
in litharge, 251; in paints, 215, 286; in printing foundry, 254; in
red lead, 250; in spelter, 249; in tinning, 259; in vacuum
cleaning, 218; in white lead, 214, 268; in yarn-heading, 300;
smoke-test, 218
Volatility of lead, 2
Washing accommodation, 235
Wasting in lead poisoning, 113, 115, 145
Water, action on lead, 3, 4
White lead: Brimsdown process, 269; casual labour in, 269;
cause of dangers in, 266; chamber process, 268; diminution
in reported cases, 270; Dutch process, 265; precipitation
process, 269; ventilation in, 214
Works’ medicines, 185
Wrist-drop. See Paralysis
Yarn-dyeing with chromate of lead, 298
Zinc: action on kidney, 130; paints, 292, 294
BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD

Transcriber’s Notes
The text used in this document is the one used in
the source document, except as mentioned below.
In particular, non-English words and phrases and
titles and author names of references, and
summations and other calculations in tables have
not been corrected, unless mentioned below.
Table numbering (or the lack thereof) has not
been standardised.
Depending on the hard- and software used to read
this text and their settings, not all elements may
display as intended.
Page 1, 6: Stockhusen is probably an error for
Stockhausen.
Page 38, the reference to Goadby[13] points to a
publication by Garrod.
Page 52: hyperthenar eminence may be an error for
hypothenar eminence.
Page 64, ... se recontrant d’une manière diffuse ...:
possibly an error for ... se rencontrant d’une
manière diffuse ....
Page 70, bottom row of Table IX: possibly the first
column should read Average age at death.
Page 220, Literature reference [5]: there is no
footnote marker in the text, and therefore no back-
link to the text.
Changes made
Tables and illustrations have been moved out of text
paragraphs. Some of the tables have been re-
arranged or split for legibility; ditto marks and the
word Ditto have in several places been replaced
with the dittoed text.
Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation
errors have been corrected silently.
Page 3: ... mascicot and litharge ... changed to ...
massicot and litharge ....
Page 47, Table III bottom part: value for 1911 in the
row Other industries changed from 8 to 88⁴
(based on the totals given).
Page 61, Footnote [2]: Dr. John Tathan changed to
Dr. John Tatham.
Page 75: Pfleuger changed to Pflueger.
Page 76: Seiffert changed to Seifert.
Page 79, references [16] and [27]: Bleilähnung
changed to Bleilähmung; reference [49]: les
Maladies du Pois et Reins changed to les
Maladies du Foie et des Reins.
Page 88: eutetic entangling changed to eutectic
entangling.
Page 151: Electrical Reactions. changed to
Electrical Reactions.
Page 169: magnese changed to manganese.
Page 220: Leclere de Pulligny changed to Leclerc
de Pulligny.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LEAD
POISONING AND LEAD ABSORPTION ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other

Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema Benedict Morrison full chapter instant download

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema Benedict Morrison full chapter instant download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema

Marie Benedict Historical Fiction Bundle Marie Benedict

The Mystery of Mrs. Christie Marie Benedict [Benedict

The Only Woman in the Room Marie Benedict

Lady Clementine Marie Benedict

Lady Clementine Marie Benedict

Explorations in Cinema through Classical Indian

The Child in British Cinema Matthew Smith

Her Hidden Genius Marie Benedict

Introduction: Articulating Art Cinema 1

5. The Technology of Articulation: Complicating Intermedia in

1.1 The cinema of impoverishment in Germania anno zero48

The Many Faces of Film Articulation

2 Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema

Cinema’s Forms of Articulation

As Gilberto Perez suggests, ‘[f]ilm is an art of fragments, but of fragments pieced

defined by a smooth seamlessness and meaning appears immanent. Roland

[C]inematographic making, without which cinema is merely technology, can

4 Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema

In her discussion of aesthetic synthesis, Ropars employs a post-­structuralist

exists only in terms of the totality of shots included in the sequence; we no

Bordwell summarizes Eisenstein’s position as the attempt to rediscover ‘unity

15 Burch (1973), 39.

6 Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema

meaning is suspended in a state of might-­ be-­

23 Jennifer O’Meara, Engaging Dialogue: Cinematic Verbalism in American Independent Cinema

8 Complicating Articulation in Art Cinema

The Critical State of Art Cinema

One of the advantages of escaping Bordwell’s taxonomy—classical, historical-­

BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

START: FULL LICENSE

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

You might also like

1.1 The cinema of impoverishment in Germania anno zero48

In her discussion of aesthetic synthesis, Ropars employs a post-structuralist

meaning is suspended in a state of might- be-

One of the advantages of escaping Bordwell’s taxonomy—classical, historical-