19,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
Versandfertig in 6-10 Tagen
10 °P sammeln
Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present]( "Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present")
Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present37,99 €![Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present]( "Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present")
Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present37,99 €![Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present]( "Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present")
Racial Stigma on the Hollywood Screen from World War II to the Present59,99 €![Staging Loss]( "Staging Loss")
Staging Loss103,99 €![The Modern Supernatural and the Beginnings of Cinema]( "The Modern Supernatural and the Beginnings of Cinema")
The Modern Supernatural and the Beginnings of Cinema123,99 €![Everybody Thought We Were Crazy]( "Everybody Thought We Were Crazy")
Everybody Thought We Were Crazy21,99 €![Screening the Sixties]( "Screening the Sixties")
Screening the Sixties37,99 €
Throughout film history, war films have been in constant dialogue with both previous depictions of war and contemporary debates and technology. War films remember older war film cycles and draw upon the resources of the present day to say something new about the nature of war. The American Civil War was viscerally documented through large-scale panorama paintings, still photography, and soldier testimonials, leaving behind representational principles that would later inform the development of the war film genre from the silent era up to the present. This book explores how each of these representational modes cemented different formulas for providing war stories with emotional content.
Elisabeth Bronfen, Professor of English and American Studies, University of Zurich
Having read through the materials included with John Trafton's Book Proposal The American Civil War and the Hollywood War Film I would recommend publication.
What follows are answers to your questions:
1. John Trafton's book looks at the way three modes of representation crucial to our memory of the American Civil War have had a cultural afterlife in the Hollywood War Film, namely a) panorama paintings, b) still photography and c) the epistolary form (soldiers' letters, diaries and anthologies of these). His theoretical project is in part influenced by Bahktin's concepts of double voicing and genre memory, as these have been applied to the representation of history on screen by Robert Burgoyne. In part it takes from the recent work of Bronfen and Kappelhoff their adaptation of Aby Warburg's notion of 'pathos formula' to a discussion of how cinematic images contain and convey emotions. At issue for Trafton is, on the one hand, the way since Griffith's first Civil War movie, Birth of a Nation, the war film genre has come to be influenced by pre-cinematic modes of representation and commemoration of the experience of this war even when they depict different wars. At the same time, and this is perhaps the more innovative aspect of his project, Trafton draws our critical attention to the way we look at representations of the Civil War - the panorama paintings, the photographs by Brady, as well as letters written from the front - through the lens of their subsequent recycling on screen (both implicit and explicit). Furthermore, by focusing on the issue of pathos formulas he is able to offer a lucid and compelling discussion of how the experience of war can be transmitted and shared with those not present on the battle field, how the aesthetic formalization of a violence and destruction can come to form imagined communities.
2. The proposal offers an original contribution to the field of war film studies in that it draws connections between representations of the civil war (both before the cinematic period and by Hollywood) and canonoc war films. Trafton thus suggests a story of influence and legacy for the war film genre not yet presented by others in the field and thus, while not addressing an emerging field within film studies - much recent scholarship already exists - it does offer a new and important perspective both on how the Civil War has been brought to the screen and, more importantly. how war films are technically and thematically indebted to other modes of representation, notably painting, photography and autobiographical texts. Discussing this medial interconnection is, indeed, a new field.
3. My one worry is that the bibliography as such seems short, and a recommendation would be for the author to look at more work especially in the field of history painting and panorama painting, in the field of history and photography (even if not directly war photography). Trafton is very clear about the scholarship most important to his work, namely Virilio, Burgoyne, Stewart, Bronfen and Kappelhoff. I would say he is taking their theoretical discussion forward in so far as he is fruitfully applying this to an interconnection which has, if not been ignored then at least not given the attention it deserves - namely that between cinematic representations of war and its debt to war painting and war photography.
4. The proposal is well structured (and the chapter I read well written). It clearly presents the link between representations of the Civil War and war cinema. The three fields Trafton has chosen to concentrate on - panorama paintings, photography, and letters/diaries - make perfect sense as a way of structuring this history of influence.
Some suggestions on the proposed chapters:
I suggest that when discussing painting and the Civil War the author be more clear about how the notion of 'pathos formula' comes from art histor
Having read through the materials included with John Trafton's Book Proposal The American Civil War and the Hollywood War Film I would recommend publication.
What follows are answers to your questions:
1. John Trafton's book looks at the way three modes of representation crucial to our memory of the American Civil War have had a cultural afterlife in the Hollywood War Film, namely a) panorama paintings, b) still photography and c) the epistolary form (soldiers' letters, diaries and anthologies of these). His theoretical project is in part influenced by Bahktin's concepts of double voicing and genre memory, as these have been applied to the representation of history on screen by Robert Burgoyne. In part it takes from the recent work of Bronfen and Kappelhoff their adaptation of Aby Warburg's notion of 'pathos formula' to a discussion of how cinematic images contain and convey emotions. At issue for Trafton is, on the one hand, the way since Griffith's first Civil War movie, Birth of a Nation, the war film genre has come to be influenced by pre-cinematic modes of representation and commemoration of the experience of this war even when they depict different wars. At the same time, and this is perhaps the more innovative aspect of his project, Trafton draws our critical attention to the way we look at representations of the Civil War - the panorama paintings, the photographs by Brady, as well as letters written from the front - through the lens of their subsequent recycling on screen (both implicit and explicit). Furthermore, by focusing on the issue of pathos formulas he is able to offer a lucid and compelling discussion of how the experience of war can be transmitted and shared with those not present on the battle field, how the aesthetic formalization of a violence and destruction can come to form imagined communities.
2. The proposal offers an original contribution to the field of war film studies in that it draws connections between representations of the civil war (both before the cinematic period and by Hollywood) and canonoc war films. Trafton thus suggests a story of influence and legacy for the war film genre not yet presented by others in the field and thus, while not addressing an emerging field within film studies - much recent scholarship already exists - it does offer a new and important perspective both on how the Civil War has been brought to the screen and, more importantly. how war films are technically and thematically indebted to other modes of representation, notably painting, photography and autobiographical texts. Discussing this medial interconnection is, indeed, a new field.
3. My one worry is that the bibliography as such seems short, and a recommendation would be for the author to look at more work especially in the field of history painting and panorama painting, in the field of history and photography (even if not directly war photography). Trafton is very clear about the scholarship most important to his work, namely Virilio, Burgoyne, Stewart, Bronfen and Kappelhoff. I would say he is taking their theoretical discussion forward in so far as he is fruitfully applying this to an interconnection which has, if not been ignored then at least not given the attention it deserves - namely that between cinematic representations of war and its debt to war painting and war photography.
4. The proposal is well structured (and the chapter I read well written). It clearly presents the link between representations of the Civil War and war cinema. The three fields Trafton has chosen to concentrate on - panorama paintings, photography, and letters/diaries - make perfect sense as a way of structuring this history of influence.
Some suggestions on the proposed chapters:
I suggest that when discussing painting and the Civil War the author be more clear about how the notion of 'pathos formula' comes from art histor