Copyright and use of this thesis

This thesis must be used in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

Reproduction of material protected by copyright may be an infringement of copyright and copyright owners may be entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright.

Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits an authorized officer of a university library or archives to provide a copy (by communication or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in the library or archives, to a person who satisfies the authorized officer that he or she requires the reproduction for the purposes of research or study.

The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work a number of moral rights, specifically the right of attribution, the right against false attribution and the right of integrity.

You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you:

- fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if you quote sections from the work

- attribute this thesis to another author

- subject this thesis to derogatory treatment which may prejudice the author’s reputation

For further information contact the University’s Director of Copyright Services

sydney.edu.au/copyright

TheCinepheur:

Post‐CinematicPassage,Post‐PerceptualPassage

WilliamStevenson

ThesissubmittedasrequirementforDoctorofPhilosophyUniversityofSydney

2013

i

ContentsAcknowledgments.................................................................................iiiListofIllustrations.................................................................................ivIntroduction

Post‐CinematicAffect,Post‐PerceptualAffect....................................1CanonicityandCinephilia...........................................................................2TheCinepheur....................................................................................................6DarkMediaEcologies.....................................................................................7ANewMethodology.....................................................................................11FromConversationtoProdusage..........................................................12Passage..............................................................................................................22DreamHousesoftheCollective..............................................................26Passage‐Crisis.................................................................................................28Threshold‐Crisis............................................................................................34DistantViewing.............................................................................................40TheGreatUnviewed....................................................................................44CinetopicPassage.........................................................................................4602013.................................................................................................................48

Chapter1:BotanisingOnCelluloid:Flânerie,Cinephilia,CinetopicPassage

Flânerie..............................................................................................................50EpistemologyofDrift..................................................................................57Cinephilia.........................................................................................................73CinetopicAnecdotes....................................................................................83Post‐CinematicPassage,Post‐PerceptualPassage.........................96Cinemania...........................................................................................................102

Excursus:ThePostmodernCinepheurFlâneuserie....................................................................................................118“AllIdoisdrift…”.......................................................................................122FirstPassage................................................................................................127SecondPassage...........................................................................................130ThirdPassage..............................................................................................134FourthPassage............................................................................................136FifthPassage................................................................................................140APostmodernCinetopicAnecdote.....................................................144

ii

Chapter2:ThePost‐CinematicCinepheur

Collection.......................................................................................................149STVPassage,STDPassage......................................................................155DiasporicIntimacy....................................................................................163PhantomRides............................................................................................165BoysintheSand...............................................................................................171ReflectiveNostalgia..................................................................................175PictureWindows,PictureWindscreens...........................................180StreetViews.................................................................................................185Infrastructuralism.....................................................................................192FoldingArchitecture.................................................................................199Metronormativity......................................................................................202CityofAngles...............................................................................................209Produsage.....................................................................................................212TheCriterionCollection..........................................................................215DVDParlours...............................................................................................218

Chapter3:ThePost‐PerceptualCinepheurDreamHousesoftheCollective...........................................................229TropicMapping..........................................................................................232HouseofCards.............................................................................................237TheFifthWall..............................................................................................239Glitch...............................................................................................................245Becoming‐Secret........................................................................................250MakingaDifference..................................................................................254Celerity...........................................................................................................256“Centuriesfromnow…”...........................................................................260Post‐PerceptualWindscreens..............................................................264ZipCode11731...........................................................................................268

ConclusionRitualisticDomesticity............................................................................279ACinetopicAnecdote...............................................................................290

BibliographyBibliographicNote.....................................................................................294Bibliography.................................................................................................295

iii

AcknowledgmentsFortheiradvice,supportandkindness,IwouldliketothankMelissaHardie,BruceGardiner,VanessaSmith,KyleCaputo,SandraStevenson,AliceStevenson,DominicaLoweandNinaCook.

iv

ListofIllustrationsFigure1. TheiPhoneMovieMapforLondon.Figure2. Wunderkammerofthemissedfilm.Figure3. Wunderkammeroftheinadequately

viewedfilm.Figure4. Wunderkammeroftheundervalued

film.Figures5‐7. Wunderkammeraoftheimproperly

constitutedvenue.Figure8. Wunderkammerofcuratorialexcess

anddetritus.Figure9. WunderkammerofCinemania.Figures10‐11. Dreamhousesofthecollective.Figures12‐14. FireIsland–windinthetrees.Figures15‐17. FireIsland–limit‐cinephilia.Figures18‐20. FireIsland–remastered.Figure21. Acinetopicanecdote.Figures22‐25. McDonald’s,1617NEasternAve,L.A.Figures26‐28. Drive‐through/offramp.Figures29‐32. GoogleGlass.Figures33‐38. InfrastructuralWunderkammera.Figures39‐40. GoogleWind.Figures41‐44. PickuponSouthStreet.Figures45‐47. RiteAid.Figures48‐50. Manhattan.Figure51. NetflixMap:TropicThunder.Figure52. NetflixMap:Twilight.Figures53‐54. NetflixMaps:BedtimeStories.Figure55. NetflixMap:BenjaminButton.Figures56‐61. “Centuriesfromnow…”Figure62. October21,2015.Figures63‐65. MinorShots.Figures66‐68. RunningFence.Figure69. FarRockaway.Figure70. Thecinepheur.

v

Ithinkofcinemas,panoramicsleightsWithmultitudesbenttowardssomeflashingsceneNeverdisclosed,buthastenedtoagain,Foretoldtoothereyesonthesamescreen;

—HartCrane,“ToBrooklynBridge”

1

Introduction

Post‐CinematicAffect,Post‐PerceptualAffect

InTheVirtualLifeofFilm,D.N.Rodowickarguesthatannouncementsofthedeathofcinemaaresymptomaticofperiodsinwhichtheaesthetic,technologicalandinfrastructuralco‐ordinatesofcinemaareinflux,andrequireanewconsumptiveandcriticalmethodology.1InPostCinematicAffect,StevenShavirodescribesthemostrecentperiodofmediafluxintermsoffour“diagrams”:

ThefirstdiagramisthatofDeleuze’s“controlsociety”…characterizedbyperceptualmodulations,dispersedand“flexible”modesofauthority,ubiquitousnetworks,andtherelentlessbrandingandmarketingofeventhemost‘inneraspects’ofsubjectiveexperience….Theseconddiagrammarksoutthedeliriousfinancialflows,oftenintheformofderivativesandotherarcaneinstruments,thatdrivetheglobalizedeconomy…Thethirddiagramisthatofourcontemporarydigitalandpost‐cinematic“mediaecology”(Fuller2005),inwhichallactivityisundersurveillancefromvideocamerasandmicrophonesandinreturnvideoscreensandspeakers,movingimagesandsynthesizedsounds,aredispersedprettymucheverywhere…Finally,thefourthdiagramisthatofwhatMcKenzieWarkcalls“gamespace,”inwhichcomputergaming“hascolonizeditsrivalswithintheculturalrealm,fromthespectacleofcinematothesimulationsoftelevision”(Wark2007,7).2

In“DiscorrelatedImages:ChaosCinema,Post‐CinematicAffectandSpeculativeRealism,”ShaneDensonextendsShaviro’sdiagramstoconsiderpost‐cinematicaffectaspartofthewideremergenceofapost‐perceptualmediaecology.DrawinguponQuentinMeillassoux’sconceptofdiscorrelationism,whichsetsouttoredressthepost‐Kantian,correlationistcommitmentto“disqualifyingtheclaimthatitispossibletoconsidertherealmsofsubjectivityandobjectivity

1D.N.Rodowick,TheVirtualLifeofFilm(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2007),28‐29.2StevenShaviro,PostCinematicAffect(London:ZeroBooks,2010),7.ShavirocitesMatthewFuller,MediaEcologies:MaterialistTendenciesinArtandTechnoculture(Cambridge:MITPress,2007)andMcKenzieWark,GamerTheory(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2007),7.

2

independentlyofoneanother,“3Densonidentifiespost‐perceptualmediawithtextsthatnolongerexclusivelyaddressahumansensorium.Instead,post‐perceptualtextsseemtopossessorexhibitanontology“withoutus,”challengingthecorrelationistpremisethat“realityisexhaustedbyourmeansofaccesstoit.”4Thisresultsfrom“atotalenvironmentofinhumanimageproduction,processingandcirculation”5that,Densonargues,hasseveredtheanaloglinkbetweenthecameralensandthehumaneye.ThisproducingwhatDensondescribesasthe“diegetisationofthecamera”–aproliferationofcamerasandrecordingdevicesthat“seemnottoknowtheirplacewithrespecttotheseparationofdiegeticandnondiegeticplanesofreality,”departingfrom“theperceptualnormsestablishedbyhumanembodiment”tooccupyan:

undecidablepositionbetweenthediegeticandthenondiegetic,orbetweentheworldonthescreenandthescreen’splaceinourworld,whichissimilarlypervadedbythesepost‐ornonhumantechnologiesoftheimage.Thus,thereisareversiblerelationbetweenthepost‐cinematicdiegesisandthenondiegeticecologyofourpost‐cinematicworld,anditisoccasionedpreciselybyacamerathatnolongersituatesusassubjectsvis‐à‐visthefilm‐as‐object,butinsteadinstitutesapervasiverelationofmarginality…Thiscorrespondstoaspecificallypost‐cinematicmodeofaddress:thecameranolongerframesactions,emotions,andeventsinagivenworld,butinsteadprovidesthecolor,look,andfeelofthefilmquamaterialcomponentoraspectoftheworld.6

CanonicityandCinephilia

Thistransitionfromacinematictopost‐cinematic–andincipientpost‐perceptual–mediaregimehasproducedtwodistinctdeath‐discourses.Firstly,3QuentinMeillassoux,AfterFinitude:OntheNecessityofContingency,trans.RayBrassier(London:BloomsburyAcademic,2010),5.4ShaneDenson,“DiscorrelatedImages:ChaosCinema,Post‐CinematicAffectandSpeculativeRealism,”InitiativeFürInterdisziplainäreMedienforschung(blog),June22,2012,http://tinyurl.com/nrsu9j8.5ThereseGrisham,ShaneDensonandJuliaLeyda,“RoundtableDiscussion#2onthePost‐Cinematic:Post‐CinematicAffect:Post‐Continuity,TheIrrationalCamera,Thoughtson3D,”LaFuriaUmana10(2011),http://tinyurl.com/ak59bzz.6ShaneDenson,“CrazyCameras,DiscorrelatedImages,andthePost‐PerceptualMediationofPost‐CinematicAffect,”InitiativeFürInterdisziplainäreMedienforschung(blog),March8,2013,http://tinyurl.com/nnhxhu2.

3

theperceiveddeathofcinemahasledcriticsandtheoriststoattemptsomeofthemostemphaticandextensivecanonsofcinemasinceAndrewSarris’TheAmericanCinema,whoseinterrogationinto“theoriginandevolutionofauteurism”7was“thelastmajorandexplicitattempttorewritethefilmcanon.”8Thishasbeenenhancedbythecanonicalvocabularysurroundingthecentenaryofcinemain1995,whichitselfdrewfromtherenewedinterestinissuesofcanonicitybroughtaboutbytheculturewarsofthe1980sand1990s.Accordingly,PeterWollen’s“TheCanon,”publishedin2002,andarguablythecentraldocumentofthiscriticalmovement,openswithWollen“wonder[ing]aboutwhetherthedebateaboutthecanonwhichwastakingplaceinotherdisciplinesimpingedinanyimportantwayonfilmstudies.”9Similarly,thethreemostambitiousfilmcanonisersofthelastfifteenyears–RogerEbert,JonathanRosenbaumandPaulSchrader–allacknowledgetheprojectoutlinedbyHaroldBloom’sTheWesternCanon,10oneofthekeytextsofthecanonwars,astheircanonicalforebear.11Alongwithcanonicity,therehasbeenarenewedcriticalinterestincinephilia,centredonChristianKeathley’s2005studyofCinephiliaandHistory,orTheWind7AndrewSarris,TheAmericanCinema:DirectorsandDirections1929‐1968(Cambridge,MA:DaCapoPress,1996),269.8PeterWollen,“TheCanon,”inParisHollywood:WritingsonFilm(London:Verso,2002),217.9Ibid.,216.10HaroldBloom,TheWesternCanon:TheBooksandSchooloftheAges(NewYork:Riverhead,1995).Bloomantithesisescanonicalandcinematicpleasure,arguingthattheissueofwhattoread“isnolongerthequestion,sincesofewnowread,intheeraoftelevisionandcinema.Thepragmaticquestionhasbecome:‘WhatshallInotbothertoread?’”(491).Indoingso,heglimpsesanegativecanonofunreadability,unknowabilityandnostalgiaforscarcity.11JonathanRosenbaum,EssentialCinema:OntheNecessityofFilmCanons(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress),xiii.PaulSchrader,“CanonFodder,”FilmComment42:5(2006),34.WhileEbertdoesn’tmentionBloomexplicitlyinthemanifestoforhis“GreatMovies”project(TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,August7,2005,http://tinyurl.com/pe2efll),heismentionedinseveraloftheindividualselections,includingChimesatMidnight(TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,June4,2006,http://tinyurl.com/l2bnkro),RichardIII(TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,October7,2009,http://tinyurl.com/n5xen2t)andFargo(RogerEbert’sJournal(blogonthewebsiteoftheTheChicagoSun‐Times),May26,2007,http://tinyurl.com/m66u6su).

4

intheTrees,anditsconceptionofthecinephilicanecdoteasanewobjectofcriticalandtheoreticalenquiry.12Althoughcinephilia’sattachmenttodiscrete,privilegedmomentsmightseematoddswiththetotalisationofacanonicalproject,Keathley’sobservationthat“contemporarycinemaofferslittlespaceforsuch[cinephilic]projection”(16)imbueshisstudywiththesameelegaicqualityascontemporarycanonicalprojects.Infact,whileKeathleyemphasisestheirreduciblypersonalqualityofcinephilicattachment,healsousesWalterBenjamin’swritingsoncollectiontocomparethosemomentsofattachmentto“thecanonintowhichthecollectororganizeshertreasuredobjects”(117).IntermsofWollen’sobservationsabouttheelegaictendenciesofcultfilmfandom,cinephilicpracticesandanecdotesmightbeunderstoodto“playanapparentlydisproportionaterolepreciselybecausetheycaredeeply(obsessively)aboutthefilmstheyloveandconstitutethemspontaneouslyintoakindof…canon.”13However,justasdigitalcultureshavecreatednewformsofcultfandom,sodigitaltechnologieshaveopenedupnewformsofcinephilia.Thefivemostinfluentialvolumesofcinephilicspeculationpublishedinthelastdecade,MarijkedeValckandMalteHagener’sCinephilia:Movies,LoveandMemory,14JonathanRosenbaumandAdrianMartin’sMovieMutations:TheChangingFaceofWorldCinephilia,15JasonSperbandScottBalcerzak’stwovolumesofCinephiliainthe12ChristianKeathley,CinephiliaandHistory,orTheWindintheTrees(Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,2005),130.Keathleypreferstheadjective“cinephiliac”dueto“thatadjectivalform’sconnotationofa‘disorder’”ofconventional,streamlinedspectatorship(xxxii).Whilenotneglectingthis“disorder,”Iwillusetheterm“cinephilic”throughoutthisthesisinordertosignalmyengagementwiththewiderdebatesanddiscoursesrevolvingaroundcontemporarycinephilia.13Wollen,“Canon,”223.14MarijkedeValckandMalteHagener,eds.,Cinephilia:Movies,LoveandMemory(Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress,2005).Seeespecially:MarijkedeValckandMarteHalgener,“DownwithCinephilia?LongLiveCinephilia?AndOtherVideosyncraticPleasures”;ThomasElsaesser,“Cinephilia,ortheUsesofDisenchantment”;DrehliRobnik,“MassMemoriesofMovies:CinephiliaasNormandNarrativeinBlockbusterCulture”;MelisBehlil,“RavenousCinephiles:Cinephilia,InternetandOnlineFilmCommunities.”15JonathanRosenbaumandAdrianMartin,eds.,MovieMutations:TheChangingFaceofWorldCinephilia(London:BritishFilmInstitute,2008).Seeespecially:JonathanRosenbaumandAdrianMartin,“Preface”;JonathanRosenbaum,Adrian

5

AgeofDigitalReproduction16andJonathanRosenbaum’sGoodbyeCinema,HelloCinephilia:FilmCultureinTransition17areallorganisedaroundreparativereadingsofdigitalcinephilia–prefaced,inthecaseofSperbandBalcerzak’svolume,withapiecebyKeathleyhimself,inwhichhereviseshispositiononcontemporarycinephiliainTheWindintheTreestotakeintoaccount“thedevelopmentoftheInternetblog,”which,outofalltheformsofdigitalcinephilia,has“mostchangedthelandscapeofcinephiliacdiscourse.”18Ifthevariousessaysandpiecesinthesevolumesadoptaconstructiveapproachtowardsdigitalcinephilia,theyalsoproposethepossibilityofadigitalorpost‐cinematiccanon,definedbywhatThomasElsaesserdescribesasthedialecticbetween“theunlimitedarchiveofourmediamemory”andthe“unlovedbitsandpieces”ofdigitalcinephilia:

Thenewcinephiliaisturningtheunlimitedarchiveofourmediamemory,includingtheunlovedbitsandpieces,thelongforgottenfilmsorprograms,intopotentiallydesirableandmuchvaluedclips,extrasandbonuses,whichprovethatcinephiliaisnotonlyananxiouslove,butcanalwaysturnitselfintoahappyperversion.And,assuch,thesenewformsofenchantmentwillprobablyalsoencounternewmomentsofdis‐enchantment,re‐establishingthepossibilityofrupture,suchaswhenthenetworkcollapses,theconnectionisbroken,ortheserverisdown.Cinephilia,inotherwords,hasreincarnateditself,bydis‐embodyingitself.19

Martin,KentJones,AlexanderHorwath,NicoleBrenzandRaymondBellour,“MovieMutations:Lettersfrom(andto)SomeChildrenof1960”;AdrianMartin,“MusicalMutations:Before,BeyondandAgainstHollywood”;AdrianMartinandJamesNaremore,“TheFutureofAcademicFilmStudy.”16JasonSperbandScottBalcerzak,eds.,CinephiliaintheAgeofDigitalReproduction,Vol.1(NewYork:WallflowerPress,2008);JasonSperb&ScottBalcerzak,eds.,CinephiliaintheAgeofDigitalReproduction,Vol.2(NewYork:WallflowerPress,2012).17JonathanRosenbaum,GoodbyeCinema,HelloCinephilia:FilmCultureinTransition(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2010).Seeespecially:“GoodbyeCinema,HelloCinephilia,”“FromPlaytimetoTheWorld:TheExpansionandDepletionofSpacewithinGlobalEconomies,”“FilmWritingontheWeb:SomePersonalReflections,”“Goodbye,Susan,Goodbye:SontagandMovies,”“TheAmericanCinemaRevisited,”“SurvivingtheSixties”and“SecondThoughtsonStroheim.”18Keathley,“Twenty‐FirstCenturyCinephile,”3.19Elsaesser,“UsesofDisenchantment,”41.

6

TheCinepheur

Inthisthesis,Iaimtoregistersucha“momentofdisenchantment”or“possibilityofrupture”withthecanonical‐cinephiliccontinuumasitnowstands:acontinuumthatJonathanRosenbaumdescribesintermsoftheconvergenceoftwodiscoursesthat,attheirmostmystical,revolvearoundthefantasyof“aself‐enclosedfilmthatsecretesitsownlaws.”20Thisisnotanargumentforamodifiedcanon,noradisavowalofthepossibilityofdigitalculturetogeneratecinephilia.Rather,itisanattempttoprovideacriticalmethodologythatmovesbeyondthetransitionfromanalogtodigitaltechnologiestothewiderconditionsofspectatorshiptoday.DrawingonShaviro’saccountofpost‐cinematicaffectandDenson’saccountofpost‐perceptualaffect,IsuggestanewcriticalmethodologybasedonFrancoMoretti’sconceptionofdistantreading,inwhich“thetextitselfdisappears”inthestudyof“unitsthataremuchsmallerormuchlargerthanthetext:devices,themes,tropes–orgenresandsystems.”Indistantreading,thecognitiveandperceptuallimitationsoftheclosereaderbecome“aconditionofknowledge.”21Whilethismethodologywillbedrawn,inpart,fromthelanguageandconcernsofthecanonical‐cinephiliccontinuum,itwillbepresentedasadiscreteandnovelmethodologyforaddressingthepositionofcinemainourcurrentmediaecology.Thismethodology,whichIamdescribingasdistantviewing,canonlybeunderstoodascanonicalinsofarasitpositsacanonofunviewed–andunviewable‐films.Similarly,itcanonlybeunderstoodascinephilicinsofarasitexpandscinephilicattachmentbeyondthecanonisableconfinesofwhatKeathleydescribesasthecinephilicmoment,“akindofmise‐en‐abymewhereineachcinephile’srelationshiptothecinemaisembodiedinitsmost,dense,concentratedform.”22DrawingonMichelFoucault’sconceptofheterotopiaas“asortofsimultaneouslymythicandrealcontestationofthe

20Rosenbaum,“SecondThoughtsonStroheim,”109.21FrancoMoretti,“ConjecturesonWorldLiterature,”NewLeftReview1(2000),http://tinyurl.com/nxvuc4s.22Keathley,WindintheTrees,22.

7

spaceinwhichwelive,”23Iusethetermcinetopicpassage–andcinetopicanecdote–todescribethismethodology,attributingittoasubjectpositionthatIlabelthecinepheur:aportmanteauof“cinephile”and“flâneur”thatgesturestowardsanincorporationofcinephiliaintoawiderattachmenttocinematicinfrastructure.Whereasthecinephilicanecdoterevolvesaroundadiscreteorprivilegedcinematicmoment,thecinetopicanecdoterevolvesaroundacollapseofcinematicandinfrastructuralattachmentthatrenderstheextractionofsuchamomentimpossible.

DarkMediaEcologies

InEcologyWithoutNature:RethinkingEnvironmentalAesthetics,TimothyMortonoutlines“darkecology”asanenvironmentaliststancethatembracesthe“leakinessoftheworld,”24an“ecologicalsensibility”thatJaneBennetthasdescribedas“posit[ing]neitherasmoothharmonyofpartsnoradiversityunifiedbyacommonspirit.”25Mortonopposesdarkecologytoecocriticismandecomimesis–specificallythedualecomimeticfantasiesofimmersionandambience.ForMorton,theecocriticalsubject’sdrivetoachieveimmersioninnaturedrawsonatraditionofreifyingnatureasambienceandatmosphere,“composedof…smooth,risk‐freestratifiedobjectsinsuccessivegradationsfromthecosmostomicrobes,”26thatreiteratesthedistinctionbetweentheecocriticalsubjectandecologicalobject,evenasitseekstochallengeandundermineit:

Ecomimesisaimstorupturetheaestheticdistance,tobreakdownthesubject‐objectdualism,toconvinceusthatwebelongtothisworld.Buttheendresultistoreinforcetheaestheticdistance,theverydimensioninwhichthesubject‐objectdualismpersists.Sincede‐distancinghasbeen

23MichelFoucault,“OfOtherSpaces,”trans.JayMiskowiec,Diacritics16:1(1986),24.24TimothyMorton,EcologyWithoutNature:RethinkingEnvironmentalAesthetics(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2005),159.25JaneBennett,VibrantMatter:APoliticalEcologyofThings(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2010),xi.26BrunoLatour,PoliticsofNature:HowtoBringtheSciencesIntoDemocracy(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004),26.

8

reified,distancereturnsevenmorestrongly,insurround‐sound,withpanoramicintensity.27

Methodologically,myelaborationofthecinetopicanecdoteattemptstopromulgatea“darkmediaecology”inthenameofapost‐cinematicandpost‐perceptualregimeinwhichthediegetisationofthecamerahas,asDensonargues,precludedthepossibilityofbothtotalimmersionintheindividualfilmandtotalabstractionoftheindividualfilmtosomuchambienceoratmosphere.Againstthetemptationtorapturousecodiegeticimmersioninthecompeting,mediatinginterfacesofthisemergentecology,thepositionofthecinepheurseekstomapamediaecologywithoutmedia,anecologyinwhich“thereisnotasinglemediumofinteractionbetweenthings,butratherjustasmanymediaasthereareobjects,”28inthesamewaythatDenson’sdarkecologyrepresentsecologywithoutnature,“nature”beingpreciselythefantasythatisglimpsedandfeltatthismomentofatmosphericimmersion.DrawingonMorton,LeviR.Bryantusestheterm“wildernessontology”torefertothismomentatwhichourecologicalperspectiveshiftsfromthatof“asovereignofnonhumanbeings”tothatofbeing“amongstnonhumanbeings.”29Bryantarguesthatthis“’amongstness”signifies“somethingthathasdark…dimensions,”30specificallythoseofthedarkobject,“athingthatproducesnodifferencebeyondthemeredifferenceofexisting.”Whileourcurrentmediaecologymaynothavequitebecomeamediawilderness,itsdrivetowardsrelegatingtheactofmediationtoamere“metaphysicalpossibility”suggestsanambitiontotransformtheobjectsandsitesofmediationintodarkobjects“thataresothoroughlywithdrawnthattheydonotaffectanythingelseatall;”31whichistosay,objectsthataresowithdrawnthattheycannotbeperceivedtoaffectanythingelseatall:

27Ibid.,135.28GrahamHarman,GuerillaMetaphysics:PhenomenologyandtheCarpentryofThings(Chicago:OpenCourt,2005),95.29LeviR.Bryant,“WildernessOntology,”inPreternatural,ed.CelinaJeffery(NewYork:PunctumBooks,2011),20.30Ibid.,20.31LeviR.Bryant,“DarkObjects,”LarvalSubjects(blog),May25,2011,http://tinyurl.com/phukj6b.

9

Incontrasttodarkmatter,weareroutinelyabletoobservedarkculture…Yetwehavelittleinthewayofanorderedunderstandingofitseffects,itsinfluenceonhowweconstructmeaning.Whatmakesit“dark,”invisibletoroutinescrutiny,isnotsimplythatitdemandshighlyspecializedfluencies(legalortechnical)orthatitiscloakedbytheconstraintsofsovereignty(copyrightandotheraspectsoftheregulatoryapparatusaccordedthestate),butitsintrinsicimmateriality,itscomplexityanditsliminalstatusinmediatingpeople,thestateandthebuiltworld.Thoughdarkcultureisundeniablyartificial–ofhumanconstruction–andcanprofoundlyshapetheenvelopeofourdailyexperienceandinteraction,ittypicallycreepsintotheawarenessofthevastmajorityofusonlyrarelyorindirectly.Asthemanifoldtechnologiesweemploytoconnectwithoneanotherandtomediateourenvironmentscontinuetoproliferate,theproportionofculturethatis“dark”willonlyincrease.32

Ifapost‐perceptualmediaecologyisoneinwhichthesitesofmediationareimperceptible,thenthetransitionfrompost‐cinematictopost‐perceptualecologiesmightbeexpectedtoturnontheabsorptionofthecinematicscreenintodarkmediamatter,accompaniedbya“returnoftheculturallyrepressed”inwhich“thecurrentbecoming‐skinofthescreenmaybetracedbacktothenineteenth‐century…wherephysicalcontactandmanipulationwasaprerequisiteofthevisualexperience.”33If,asGillesDeleuzeargues,thetransitionfrompre‐WWIItopost‐WWIIcinemawitnessedaslackeningofsensory‐motorintegration,thenwhatwearewitnessinghereisaslackeningofatmosphereandambience,aslackeningofthepossibilitiesforimmersion,thatdependspreciselyonthere‐integrationofthesensorium.34Mortonconstruesambienceasaparadoxicalecologicalobject,butitisanequallyparadoxicalcinematicobject,insofarasitskinaestheticprimacyonlyramifieswhensubordinatedtovisuality.Thisisnottoarguethatatmospheric,ambientfilmsnolongerexist,butthatatmosphereisfrequentlyunderstoodintermsofretrospectionandpastiche.Inaninterviewforoneofthemostself‐consciously

32LaneDeNicola,“EULA,Codec,API:OntheOpacityofDigitalCulture,”inMovingData:TheiPhoneandtheFutureofMedia,ed.PelleSnickarsandPatrickVonderau(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2012),276.33AlexandraSchneider,“TheiPhoneasanObjectofKnowledge,”inSnickarsandVonderau(eds.),MovingData,55.34GillesDeleuze,Cinema2:TheTime‐Image,trans.HughTomlinsonandRobertGaleta(NewYork:Continuum,2005),59.

10

historicisedfilmsofthelastfewyears,NicolasWindingRefn’sDrive,35RyanGoslingdrawsacommondenominatorbetweenitshighlystylisedambienceandhisupcomingremakeofMichaelAnderson’sLogan’sRun36intermsoftheimportanceof“filmsthatareparticularlywellsuitedtothiscommunalatmosphereofatheatre.”37ThisexplicitconnectionbetweenatmosphereandthemaintenanceofdiegeticparametersisextendedinShaviro’s“SlowCinemavs.FastFilms,”inwhichthedistinctionbetweenatmosphereandslackenedatmosphereisphrasedintermsofthedistinctionbetweentheself‐consciously“cinematic”andthemerely“filmic.”ShaviroframestheemergenceofCCC–“contemporarycontemplativecinema”–asanostalgicdisavowalofa“filmindustrywhoseproductionprocesseshavebeenentirelyupendedbydigitalization,andwherefilmitselfhasincreasinglybeendisplacedbynewermedia,andrefashionedtofinditsplacewithinthelandscapeofthosenewermedia.”38Adarkmediaecologythereforeseversimmersionandatmospherics,mediaandmediation,insteadfocusingonthe‘’leakiness”thatMortonattributestodarkecology.InadiscussionofthetreatmentofglobalwarmingandenvironmentalcatastropheinRichardKelly’sSouthlandTales,39Shavirodescribespost‐cinematicaffectintermsof“aleakingawayoftime–itsasymptoticapproachtoanenditneverfullyattains.”40InConnected,heidentifiesthisleakinessofsurplusvaluewithwhatitmeanstoliveinasocietythatnetworksandsubsistsuponthevastproliferationofpost‐cinematicscreens:“Wehavemovedoutoftimeandintospace.Anythingyouwantisyoursfortheasking…Asurplushas

35Drive,directedbyNicolasWindingRefn(2011;SantaMonica,CA:SonyPicturesHomeEntertainment,2012),DVD.36Logan’sRun,directedbyMichaelAnderson(1976;BeverlyHills,CA:WarnerHomeVideo,2007),DVD.37RothCornet,“Interview:RyanGoslingon‘Drive’and‘Logan’sRun,’”ScreenRant,accessedAugust23,2013,http://tinyurl.com/mplladg.38StevenShaviro,“SlowCinemavs.FastFilms,”ThePinocchioTheory(blog),May12,2010,http://tinyurl.com/2ajkx3q.39SouthlandTales,directedbyRichardKelly(2007;NewYork:SonyPicturesHomeEntertainment,2008),DVD.40Shaviro,PostCinematicAffect,87.

11

leakedoutoftheexchangeprocess.”41Asamethodology,thecinetopicanecdotedoesn’tattempttorecountaprivilegedmomentofatmosphericimmersion,butinsteadevokesthesurplusleak,theperceptualporosity,betweencinemaandpost‐cinematicinfrastructure.Assuch,itisitselfaneminentlyleakyform:unlikethecinephilicanecdote,whichcanbewrittenorrecountedinitsentirety,thecinetopicanecdotedemandstheleakageofwhatwillshortlybedescribedasprodusage,aswellasrequiringtherecreationorinstantiationoftheheterotopicfragmentfromwhichittakesitsinspiration,inaninstanceofthe“affectivelabour”thatShaviroidentifiesas“thequintessentialmodeofproduction”inapost‐cinematicmediaecology.42ANewMethodology

Theneedforsuchamethodologyhasbecomeparticularlypressingintheseconddecadeofthenewmillennium.Inthe2010s,anewwaveofannouncementsofthedeathofcinemahaveemerged.Inpart,thesehavereiteratedandconsolidatedfamiliarmillennialarguments,suchasthereplacementofcelluloidwithdigitalfilmstock43andtheincreasingdisparitybetweenmainstreamandspecialisedvenues(andgrowingscarcityofthelatter).44Othercritiqueshaveremediatedearlieranxietiesaboutremediation.Inhisaccountoftheconnectionbetweendeath‐critiqueandmethodologicalrevolution,Rodowickprioritisestheflourishingofcinephiliccultureinthe1960s,whichheattributestoanxietiesabouttelevisionencroachinguponcinema.45TheremediationofthisanxietyinthewakeofthemostrecentGoldenAgeoftelevisionsuggeststhatweareinthemidstofageneralrevivalofthecriticalanxietyandcreativityof1960sfilmculture,ofwhichEbert,RosenbaumandSchrader’svariousreturnstoSarrisare

41StevenShaviro,Connected,orWhatItMeanstoLiveintheNetworkSociety(Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2003),249.42Shaviro,PostCinematicAffect,97.43AndrewGilbert,“TheDeathofFilmandtheHollywoodResponse,”SensesofCinema,62(2012),http://tinyurl.com/l789yxz.44DavidBordwell,“Gotthosedeathoffilm/movies/cinemablues?”Observationsonfilmart(blog),June15,2012,http://tinyurl.com/mtolak2.45Rodowick,VirtualLifeofFilm,28‐29.

12

justonefacet.HenceAndrewO’Hehir,inaSalonarticlefromlate2012,characterisesDavidChase’scinematicdebutintermsofredundantreturn:

Oneofthecenterpieceeventsofthe50thNewYorkFilmFestival…istheworldpremiereof“TheSopranos”creatorDavidChase’s“NotFadeAway,”a1960s‐setsuburbanrock‐banddrama.Alongwiththerestofthemovieworld,I’mcurioustoseeit(iftherehavebeenanyscreeningssofar,theyremaincloselyguardedindustrysecrets).Buthere’smyhalfwayseriousquestionforChase:Whybother?46

O’Hehir’sarticleformspartofacriticalconversationthatoccurredinlate2012,spearheadedbyapairofarticlespublishedintheTheNewRepublic:DavidDenby’s“HasHollywoodMurderedtheMovies?”andDavidThomson’s“AmericanMoviesareNotDead,TheyareDying.”47Botharticlestransplanttheelegaicregisterof2000sdeath‐critiqueontotheutteranceofdeath‐critiqueitself,creatingaself‐referentialitythatledRichardBrodytoobservethat“the‘DeathofMovies’thinkpieceis,bynow,afamiliargenre,inwhichdigitaltechnology,asemployedbyHollywood,hasbecomeastockvillain.”48Yetthisself‐referentialityalsosignalstheexhaustionofthiselegaicregister,gesturingtowardsarecalibrationofmethodologythat,uponcloseexamination,recallsMoretti’scharacterisationofdistantreading.FromConversationtoProdusage

Denby’sarticle“HasHollywoodMurderedtheMovies?”opensbyobservingthatindependent,foreignandlow‐budgetfilmisasprolificasmainstream,American,Hollywoodfilm:46AndrewO’Hehir,“Ismovieculturedead?”Salon,September29,2012,http://tinyurl.com/92qhthy.47DavidDenby,“HasHollywoodMurderedtheMovies?”TheNewRepubliconline,September14,2012,http://tinyurl.com/aveobej.DavidThomson,“AmericanMoviesareNotDead,TheyAreDying,”TheNewRepubliconline,September14,2012,http://tinyurl.com/mjsyku8.AllquotesfromDenbyandThomsonaretakenfromthesearticlesunlessotherwisespecified.48RichardBrody,“TheMovesAren’tDying(They’reNotEvenSick),”TheFrontRow(blogonthewebsiteofTheNewYorker),September27,2012,http://tinyurl.com/92xeyjo.

13

SixhundredorsomoviesopenintheUnitedStateseveryyear,includingfilmsfromeverycountry,documentaries,firstfeaturesspillingoutoffestivals,experiments,oddities,zero‐budgetmoviesmadeinsomeone’sapartment.Eveninthedigit‐dazedsummerseason,smallmoviesneverstopopening—thereisalwayssomethingtosee,somethingtowriteabout.

Similarly,cinephilicdiscourseisprolific,encompassingaglobalcommunitywho:

plantthemselvesathomeinfrontofflatscreensandcomputers,wheretheylookatoldfilmsorsmallnewfilmsfromthefourcornersoftheglobe,bloggingandexchangingdiskswiththeirfriends.Theyareextraordinary,someofthem,andtheirblogsandwebsitesgenerateanexfoliatingmassofknowledgeandopinion,athickeningdensityofinquiriesandclaims,outragedanddulcettweets.

Ifindependentcinemaandcinephiliaareflourishing,thenDenby’selegycannotbedirectedatindependentfilmculture.Instead,itisanelegyforaparticularkindofdependence,associatedwith“theshiftinlarge‐scalemovieproductionawayfromadults”:

Theintentionalshiftinlarge‐scalemovieproductionawayfromadultsisasadbetrayalandaminorcatastrophe.Amongotherthings,ithaskilledalotofthecultureofthemovies.Byculture,Idonotmeanfilmfestivals,filmmagazines,andcinephileInternetsitesandbloggers,allofwhichareflourishing.Imeanthatblessedlysaturatedmentalstateofmoviegoing,bothsolitaryandsocial,halfdreamy,halfcritical,maybeamused,butalsosometimesawed,thatfuelsalivingartform.Moviegoingisbothaprivateandasociableaffair—astrangers‐at‐barbecues,cocktail‐partyaffair,thecommoncoinofeverydaydiscourse.Inthefallseasontheremaybeanumberofgoodthingstosee,andso,foradultaudiences,thehabitmayflickertolifeagain.Ifyouhaveseenoneofthefiveinterestingmoviescurrentlyplaying,thenyouneedtoseetheotherfoursoyoucanjointhedinner‐partyconversation.Ifthereisonlyone,asthereismostoftheyear,youmayskipitwithoutfeelingyouaremissingmuch.

ItishardtotakeseriouslyDenby’ssuggestionthat“filmfestivals,filmmagazinesandcinephileInternetsitesandbloggers”arenotresponsibleforfilm“asalivingartform,”orthattheirpracticionersdon’tparticipateinthe“blessedlysaturatedstateofmoviegoing”thathedescribes.Nordoesitseemasifthe“mentalstateofmoviegoing”istherealobjectofhiselegy:itisthesociabilityofcinemathatmostpreoccupiesDenby,specificallythesociabilityofthediscussionsthatoccurafter

14

afilm.Condensedto”dinner‐partyconversations”anddisplacedto“thecommoncoinofeverydaydiscourse,”itiscinemaasaconversiblemediumthatDenbyelegises.Atonelevel,thisisanelegyforconversationsaboutcinema:theproblemwithindependentfilmculture,asDenbyseesit,isthatitistooprolific.Ifoneadultfilmperseasonistoolittletogenerategooddinner‐partyconversation,thenmorethanfiveadultfilmsperseasonarepresumablytoomany.Certainly,thevastproliferationofindependentcinemaisbeyondthepurviewofasingledinnerparty.However,thisissimultaneouslyanelegyforconversationswithcinema:the“private,”“dreamy”encountersthatareheldwiththeindividualfilm.InConversation:AHistoryofaDecliningArt,StephenMillerdescribesconversationasanartofgeneralknowledge,groundingitintheemergenceofintellectualgeneralismandliteraryjournalismintheeighteenthcentury.49Byelegisingconversiblecinema,Denbyproblematisescinematicgeneralismandjournalismtosuggestconversationhasbecomediscorrelatedfromcinematicexperience,aswellassituatinghisown“periodicalessays”withinwhatClaudeJulienRawsondescribesastheAugustantradition:

‘Conversation’isanelastictermoftenstretchingtoabroadermeaningthantheverbal.JohnsonsawtheperiodicalessaysasbelongingwiththegreatconductbooksofCastaglione,dellaCasa,andLaBruyère.HeregardedSteeleandAddisonas‘mastersofcommonlife’whoundertookthefirstlarge‐scalereformofmannersinEnglandanddidsoinanewjournalisticmedium(‘thefrequentpublicationofshortpapers’)whichJohnsonconsideredparticularlysuitedtosuchanenterprise.Andtheword‘conversation’readilyappliedtotheentireproject,whichintroducednotonly…politicallymollifyinggeniality…butalsothecorrectionofRestorationscurrilityandtheTatler’scrusadesagainstgamblingandduelling.50

49StephenMiller,Conversation:AHistoryofaDecliningArt(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2007),25,84,121.50ClaudeJulienRawson,SatireandSentiment1660‐1830:StressPointsintheEnglishAugustanTradition(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2000),206.

15

NoAmericancriticresistedthisdiscorrelationmorestrenuouslythanEbert,whorepeatedlyusedSamuelJohnsonasacriticaltouchstone51and:

wroteawonderfulmemoir,closeinitsdeceptivelyprofound,plainspokenwaytotwoofthewriters[he]mostadmired:CharlesDickensandSamuelJohnson.Andindeed,RogerwasnothingifnotanAnglophile:amongtheleastknownbooksheauthoredisaslendervolumecalled“ThePerfectLondonWalk,”aninstructionaltravelbookthat…isararecaseoftruthintitling.52

Ebert’scriticismcontinuallysoughttotransformcinemaintoa“greatconductbook”:“WhatkindofmoviesdoIlikethebest?IfIhadtomakeageneralization,Iwouldsaythatmanyofmyfavouritemoviesareaboutgoodpeople…Thebestfilmsaren’taboutwhathappenstothecharacters.It’sabouttheexamplesthattheyset.”53This“politicallymollifyinggeniality”wasfrequentlyusedinthecorrectionofperceived“scurrility,”personifiedbyfiguresasdiverseasRobSchneider(forDeuceBigalow:EuropeanGigolo),54VincentGallo(forTheBrownBunny)55andJonathanRosenbaum(forFannyandAlexander).56However,itwasinhisinteractionswithNewYorkPresscriticArmandWhitethatEbert’s“large‐scalereformofmanners”wasmostconcentrated,ashefoundinWhitebotharemediationofthe“raillery”essentialtoAugustanconversation57andacautionarynarrativeabout“gamblingandduelling”:“Itisbafflingtomethata51See“WorldAffairswon’tbetheSameWithoutHoward,”(TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,November29,1995,http://tinyurl.com/mbmpysj)and“BlankCity:MovieReview”(TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,June6,2011,http://tinyurl.com/l3rcbac).52ScottFounas,“RogerEbert:AMentortotheEnd,”Varietyonline,April5,2013,http://tinyurl.com/cr9ufus.53RogerEbert,“Twenty‐FiveYearsintheDark,”inAwakeintheDark:TheBestofRogerEbert(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2006),388‐389.54RogerEbert,“ABouquetArrives…”RogerEbert’sJournal(blogonthewebsiteoftheTheChicagoSun‐Times),May7,2007,http://tinyurl.com/ow8cv32.DeuceBigalow:EuropeanGigolo,directedbyMikeBigelow(2005;CulverCity,CA:SonyPicturesHomeEntertainment,2005),DVD.55RogerEbert,“TheBrownBunny:MovieReview,”TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,September3,2004,http://tinyurl.com/pebdz2t.TheBrownBunny,directedbyVincentGallo(2004;NewYork:SonyPicturesHomeEntertainment,2005),DVD.56RogerEbert,“DefendingIngmarBergman,”TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,August7,2007,http://tinyurl.com/oq95coc.IngmarBergman,FannyandAlexander(1982;Stockholm:TheCriterionCollection,2011),DVD.57Miller,Conversation,5.

16

criticcouldpraiseTransformers2butnotSynecdoche,NY.OrDeathRacebutnotThereWillBeBlood.IamforcedtoconcludethatWhiteis,ascharged,atroll;asmartandknowingone,butatroll.”58InthewakeofEbert’spassing,elegieshavefrequentlyfocusedonhisconversationalregister.Inararecitationalanddevotionalgesture,theInternetMovieDatabaserepostedLandonPalmer’spaeantoEbert’sabilitytoframe“FilmCriticismasasConversation,”59whilecountlessothersites,bothformalandinformal,relatehislegacytohis“uniquelyaccessible,conversationalandsharp‐wittedvoice,”60asevincedinhiswrittenreviews,hisconversationswithGeneSiskel,andhisbooksandmonographs,oftenwrittenorstructuredasaconversation.Evenhisfinalreview,ofTerenceMalick’sToTheWonder,61focusedonthe“dreamyandhalf‐heard”62dialogueestablishedbetweenaudienceandscreen,whilehispenultimatereview,ofAndrewNiccol’sTheHost,63readsasafinalmanifestoforcriticismasa“discursive,conversantpractice:”64“‘TheHost’istop‐heavywithprofound,sonorousconversations,alltendingtosoundlikefarewells.”65ItisthissonorousfarewelltoconversationthatpreoccupiesandtroublesDenby,aswellasStephenMiller,whooffershisowncautionarytale:

58RogerEbert,“NotInDefenseofArmondWhite,”RogerEbert’sJournal(blogonthewebsiteoftheTheChicagoSun‐Times),August14,2009,http://tinyurl.com/n8qgqtw.59LandonPalmer,“RememberingRogerEbert,HisThumbandFilmCriticismasaConversation,”FilmSchoolRejects,April5,2013,http://tinyurl.com/mhen9kn.RepostedattheInternetMovieDatabase,4May,2013,http://tinyurl.com/otzx4gl.60JakeWalter,“RogerEbert’sLasting“LeaveofPresence,””TheAmherstStudent142:21(2013),http://tinyurl.com/l22jm8m.61ToTheWonder,directedbyTerenceMalick(2012;NewYork),film.62RogerEbert,“ToTheWonder:MovieReview,”TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,April6,2013,http://tinyurl.com/bqvb6v3.63TheHost,directedbyAndrewNiccol(2013;Knoxville,TN:UniversalStudios,2013),DVD.64Palmer,“RememberingRogerEbert.”65RogerEbert,“TheHost:MovieReview,”TheChicagoSun‐Timesonline,March27,2013,http://tinyurl.com/lgmuc4n.

17

TheWashingtonPostdescribesafamilythatisawashinconversationavoidancedevices.Thefamilyofsix(therearetwochildrenfromthemother’spreviousmarriageandtwofromthefather’spreviousmarriage)possessninetelevisionsets,sixcomputers,sixVCRs,sixcellphones,threestereos,threedigitalmusicplayers,andtwoDVDplayers.Theyeatdinnerquicklyandretiretotheirelectroniccocoons.SometimesafamilymemberexchangesInstantMessageswithanotherfamilymembereventhoughbothareathome.66

Here,Denbyequatesconversationwiththehomethathasbeenlost,partakingofwhatSvetlanaBoymdescribesasrestorativenostalgia,‐nostalgiathattakesitself“deadseriously”andaims“torebuildthemythicalplacecalledhome.”67Ifonlywecouldrestoreconversation,Millersuggests,wecouldrestorethelosthomeonceandforall.Attheveryleast,aworldofsingleandenduringmarriageswouldmeannochildrenfrompreviousmarriagesandnoscreensfrompreviousmarriages.Boymopposesrestorativenostalgiatoreflectivenostalgia,whichacceptswhenthehomehasbeen“renovatedorgentrifiedbeyondrecognition.”68Itisaninterestingquestion,then,whetherEbert’smuch‐touteduseofsocialmediawasaradicalgestureofreflectivenostalgia,orthedegreezeroofrestorativenostalgia.InEbert’shands,homelyconversationwasrenovatedandgentrifiedthroughsocialmedia,andTwitterinparticular,butwasitrenovated“beyondrecognition?”AgainstEbert’sownsuggestionthatTwitter,likeconversation,isongoing–“Twitterformeperformsthefunctionofarunningconversation”69–thecanonicalclimatehastendedtoidentifyhimwithTwitterinsuchawaythathisdemisemeansitsdemise:“IfTwitterwasmadeforEbert,Ebertwas,intheend,madeforTwitter.”70In“WhattheInternetowestoRoger

66Miller,Conversation,284.67SvetlanaBoym,TheFutureofNostalgia(NewYork:BasicBooks,2001),49‐50.68Ibid.,50.69ThisaphorismisdrawnfromSheaBennett’s“RogerEbert’s8RulesForUsingTwitter”(AllTwitter,April8,2013,http://tinyurl.com/dyjqmx6).70DougGross,“OnTwitter,RogerEbertfoundanewvoice,”CNNonline,April5,2013,http://tinyurl.com/lbrwp93.SeealsoEbert’s“ConfessionsofaBlogger”(RogerEbert’sJournal(blogonthewebsiteoftheTheChicagoSun‐Times),August21,2008,http://tinyurl.com/n5amxgk):“YourcommentshaveprovidedmewiththebestideaofmyreadersthatIhaveeverhad,andyouarethereadersIhavedreamedof.IwaswritingtoyoubeforeIwassureyouwerethere.”

18

Ebert,”71GeneSeymourarguesthatitwasonlywithsocialmediathatEbertwasabletofulfilthemissionofeverytrueconversationalist,andeverytruecritic;namely,to“empowereverybodytobelievethey’recritics.”YetSeymouralsonotesthatEbertcouldbe“oracularanddidacticwhenhefeltmessianic”–andtheparadoxofaconversationaloracle,ofafigurewhosavessocialmedia,andconversation,fromitself,isthattheyeternaliseconversation,dissociatingitfromcommondiscourseintheprocess.72WhetherEbertdidmoretoeternaliseorrevivifyconversation,andwhetherhisnostalgiawasrestorativeorreflective,isultimatelylesssignificantthanthefactthathisstatusasanelegaicobjectspeakstoacrisisincertainnotionsofconversation,aswellasacrisisinrestorativenostalgia.Inthatsense,hispassingrepresentstheperceivedendofwhatDenbydescribesas“thestrong,direct,plain,Englishsentence.”73Ofcourse,thecriticalculturesthatDenbydissociatesfromthis“sentence”–“filmfestivals,filmmagazinesandcinephileInternetsitesandbloggers”–are,inmanyways,moreconversationalthantheprivilegedcritic‐filmrelationship.Thedifferenceisthattheseconversationsarenotexemplaryinthesameway–theyareconversations,ratherthantheconversation–andtheirverypremiseandpointofdepartureisthatthereisnosuchthingasatranscendentallyprivilegedspectator‐filmconversationinthewaythatDenbydescribesandEbertenacted.Inpart,thissignalstheemergenceofamorecollaborativecriticalconversation,orthesubsumptionofconversationintotheemergenceofwhatAxelBrunsdescribesas“produsage.”Definingprodusageasthekeycriticalregisterofadigitalmediaecology,Brunsobservesthatit“deconstructslargeroveralltasksintoamoregranularsetofproblems,andthereforeinthefirstplacegeneratesaseriesofindividual,incomplete

71GeneSeymour,“WhattheInternetowestoRogerEbert,”CNNonline,April5,2013,http://tinyurl.com/kzjnet5.72Inaconversationpoemforthepost‐cinematicera,EbertconstructedamultimediaessayonSamuelTaylorColeridge’soracularconversation.“SamuelTaylorColeridge,”Balder&Dash(blogonthewebsiteoftheTheChicagoSun‐Times),July25,2011,http://tinyurl.com/lupkak2.73DavidDenby,“AsktheAuthorLive,”AsktheAuthor(blogonthewebsiteofTheNewYorker),March3,2010,http://tinyurl.com/mb9fdn3.

19

artefacts.”74Produsage,likegoodconversation,isthereforegenerative:insteadofsealingofftheexemplaryindividualismoftheparticipants,itconflatesindividualitywithincompleteness.Accordingly,Brunssuggeststhat“theconversationaboutprodusage”isbestcontinued“throughthemediumofprodusageitself.”75Bruns’accountofprodusagesuggeststhatDenby’sanxietyatthedisruptionofapreviouslyprivilegedrelationshipbetweencriticandscreenissimultaneouslyananxietyaboutthedistinctionbetweenproductionandconsumption.InJonathanBeller’sterms,thisanxietyissymptomaticoftheemergenceofanattentioneconomy,inwhichpreciselywhatislackingisscarcity,and“theproductivevalueofhumanattentionisonlynowbeginningtobeperceptible.”76Inhis2002memoirAmericanSucker,Denbyoffersapersonalandeconomicperiodisationofthiselegyforcinematicscarcity.Thememoirdetailstheyearsfrom1999to2002,settingthedissolutionofDenby’smarriageandNewYorkapartmenthomeagainstthebackdropoftheDotcomBubble.Inanefforttocompensateforhisfinanciallosses,Denbyattemptedtomakeonemilliondollarsonthestockmarket.InBlogs,Wikipedia,SecondLifeandBeyond,Brunsarguesthattheinvestmentrequiredofprodusageisof“timeandeffortratherthandollarsandcents.”77WhileDenby’smemoirdoesdetailhisdeliriouseconomicandfinancialspeculations,itsimultaneouslyexpandstomoregeneral“investmentsoftimeandeffort”producedbythisopennesstoprodusage.SincehisinvestmentsweremadeduringtheBubble,theseobjectsoftimeandefforttendtorevolvearoundtheinternet.Forthemostpart,thesearecinephilicinnatureandcentreonpornographicaddiction.Inmysecondchapter,IdiscusstherelationshipbetweenprodusageandpornographyintermsofRamonLobato’sinvestigationintoinformal–or“grey”–economiesofcinema,“online74AxelBruns,“BeyondDifference:ReconfiguringEducationfortheUser‐LedAge,”inDigitalDifference:PerspectivesonOnlineLearning,eds.RayLandandSiânBaymne(Rotterdam,NL:Sense,2011),140.75AxelBruns,Blogs,Wikipedia,SecondLifeandBeyond(NewYork:PeterLang,2008),7.76JonathanBeller,TheCinematicModeofProduction:AttentionEconomyandtheSocietyoftheSpectacle(Lebanon,NH:DartmouthCollegePress,2006),113.77Bruns,Blogs,Wikipedia,SecondLife,131.

20

distributioncircuitssituatedbetweentheformalandinformalrealms,inagreyzoneofsemi‐legality.”78Denbyglimpsesthis“greyzone”ashefindshimselfbothconsumedandproducedbyhispornographicaddiction:

Afterawhile,asIspilledfromsitetosite,IfeltnotthatIwascontrollinganddiscoveringpornonthe'Netbutthatitwasdiscoveringme.Itwasseekingmeout,readingme,anditfoundoutthingsaboutmethatIdidn'tknow.Icontinuedtoreviewmovies,Ihaddinnerwithfriends,tookcareoftheboyswhenitwasmyturn.Ifedthecat,readtheTimesandtheJournal,butIfelt,attimes,asifIwerebreakingintofragments.Ihadthisappetiteandthatone,butwhatheldthemtogether?79

Denby’squestionofwhatheldthesedesirestogetherisansweredbythemetonymicchainthatprecedesit:bookendedby“reviewingmovies”and“readingtheTimesandtheJournal,”itencompasses“havingdinnerwithfriends”andtakingcareofhisfamily,petsandproperty.Inotherwords,“ordinarydiscourse”issetagainstprodusage,inmuchthesamewayasin“HasHollywoodMurderedtheMovies?”However,anextralayeroffamilial,domesticstabilityhasbeenaddedtothatdiscourse,onlytobesubsumedintocanonicalstability:

TheInternetisalwaysspokenofasamediumofconnection,butitisalsoamediumofisolationthatsurfstheuserandbreakshimintoseparatewavesgoingnowhere.Therewasthemoviehunger,andthelusthunger,andtheearlystirringsofthemoneyhunger.Butwherewasthecore,reconcilingandjoiningthemanyelementstogether?Inthetomesabovethecomputer?MybookabouttheclassicswasdevotedtoColumbia'sversionofthe"corecurriculum."That'swhythebigboyswereupthere,intheshelvesabovethemonitor.Whatwouldtheyhavesaid?80

Here,Denbyliterallyequatesthecanonwiththehomethathasbeenlost,onceagainpartakingofrestorativenostalgia’sneed“torebuildthemythicalplacecalledhome.”InDenby’scase,thismightbespecifiedtotheconversationsthattakeplaceinthemythicalplacecalledhome,sinceitisthoseconversations,asmuchasthehomeitself,thataretheobjectofhis2012death‐critique.Bycontrast,Denby’sfixationontheimmediatepornographicpastspeakstothe78RamonLobato,ShadowEconomiesofCinema:MappingInformalFilmDistribution(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2012),95.79DavidDenby,AmericanSucker(NewYork:BackBayBooks,2005),15.80Denby,AmericanSucker,15.

21

reflectivenostalgic’stendencytoenvisagethepastvirtually,asa“multitudeofpotentialities,nonteleologicalpossibilitiesofhistoricdevelopment”:“Wedon’tneedacomputertogetaccesstothevirtualitiesofourimagination:reflectivenostalgiahasacapacitytoawakenmultipleplanesofconsciousness.”81Infact,DenbyopensAmericanSuckerwithasustainedactofreflectivevirtuality: SometimeinearlyJanuary2000,IbecameawarethatIwasjabbering.

Iwasonthephone,inmylittlestudyathomeonWestEndAvenue,inManhattan,andspeakingasbreathlesslyasacattleauctioneerinfullcry.Jumpingoververbalfences,mashingparticipials,droppingqualifiers...Iwastalkingtoanoldfriendaboutmovies,andIsaidsomethinglikethis:Moviepeoplethinkplatformingworksonlywithquality‐word‐of‐mouthandslow‐buildingthree‐four‐million‐a‐weekpicturesinwhichbuzzrollsintomultipleviewingslikeTheEnglishPatientorShakespeareinLove...Ihadtroublesayingonethingatatime.Ihadtosaytwothings,orthree,tuckingstatisticsintomywordsasItalked,andIseemedtobegroupingideasorpiecesofinformationrhythmically,byassociation,ratherthanbycauseandeffect.AsIhungup,Iwondered,Whoisthisnut,gatheringandexpellinginformationinchargedlittleclumps,likeaWebsitespillingbytes?82

Atthispoint,Denby,likeBoym’sreflectivenostalgic,nolongerneedsacomputertoaccessthevirtualitiesofhisimagination;hehasbecomeacomputer,oratleastbecomecapableofvirtualutterance.Likeanauctioneer,hisutteranceoccursatthefrenziednexusbetweenmultipleproducersandmultipleconsumers.WhileDenbyiswritingofatimewhendigitalcinephiliawasmoreinchoatethanitisin2012,heisneverthelessutteringthediscourseofdigitalcinephilia:thisisaconversation,butitisnolongeraprivilegedorexemplaryconversation.Rather,itisaconversationthatismeaninglesswithoutthecollaborativevoiceofmultipleparticipants,aconversationthatismeaninglesswithoutprodusage.WhilethisreflectivemodeismoreorlesspathologisedoverthecourseofAmericanSucker,itrecurs–oratleastthepossibilityofitrecurs–atthosemomentsatwhichDenbydramatiseshismovementoutofhisfamilyhome,orhisefforttomapandnavigatethedispersalsofthathomeintothesurroundingstreets:“IwouldlookupanddownWestEndAvenue,waitingfor

81Boym,FutureofNostalgia,50.82Denby,AmericanSucker,4.

22

somefreshbreezetocomealongandrescueme–itwastheresomewhere,comingdowntheblock.”83Passage

InBenjamin’sterms,thisefforttointerioriseanddomesticatethestreetscapeatitsmosttransitorycorrespondstotheperceptualpostureofflânerie,84justasprodusage,andDenby’sapprehensionofit,isforeshadowedbyBenjamin’sownprodusedmasterpieceoffragmentationanddarkecology,TheArcadesProject:

ThesenotesdevotedtotheParisarcadeswerebegununderanopenskyofcloudlessbluethatarchedabovethefoliageandyetwasdimmedbythemillionsofleavesfromwhichthefreshbreezeofdiligence,thestertorousbreathofresearch,thestormofyouthfulzealandtheidlewindofcuriosityhaveraisedthedustofcenturies.85

IntendedasBenjamin’smagnumopus,TheArcadesProject,astudyofurbanpassageandspectacle,wasdesignedtobeexhibitedasaninstanceofpassageandspectacle,ideallyasthecaptionstoanexhibitionofphotographs.86Aswellasbeingamultimodaltext,TheArcadesProjectisalsoahighlycollaborativetext,includingextensivequotationsandparaphrases.AsAvitalRonellobservesin“StreetTalk,”WalterBenjaminwould“collectquotations,insertthemhereorthere,pickthemup,takethemhomewithhim,discoveringtheirsolicitationsonthereadingboulevards,caringforthem.”87Asanattempttomapandevoketheintersticesbetweenlatenineteenthcenturyandearlymodernistprivateandpublicspace,TheArcadesProjectsperformsaphenomenologyofamediaecologyinwhichphotographicandcinematictechnologieshadnotfullyemergedfroma83Ibid.,16.84Iwillitaliciseflâneuranditsvariousderivationsthroughoutthisthesis,sincethatistheconventioninscholarlyexaminationsoftheconcept.BenjaminhimselfdoesnotconsistentlyitaliciseitinTheArcadesProject,butthatmayequallybeadecisionoftheeditorsandtranslators,sinceitappearsitalicisedelsewhereinhiswork,includinginseveralsourcescitedthroughoutthisthesis.85WalterBenjamin,TheArcadesProject,ed.RolfTiedemann,trans.HowardEilandandKevinMcLaughlin(Cambridge,MA:Belknap,2002),884.86Keathley,WindintheTrees,4.87AvitalRonell,“StreetTalk,”inBenjamin’sGround:NewReadingsofWalterBenjamin,ed.RainerNagele(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,1988),131.

23

widerurbanspectatorialmatrix.UsingDenson’sargumentthatthetransitionfrompost‐cinematictopost‐perceptualmediaecologiesismarkedbyadiegetisationofthecamera,IdeployTheArcadesProjectasakeytextforexaminingandmappingthedispersalofcinematicconversation,canonicityandstabilitybackintotheurbanspectatorial‐infrastructuralmatrixfromwhichitoriginallyemerged.

Inordertoperformthismapping–amovementfromFredricJameson’sconceptionofcognitivemappingtosomethingthatIwilltermtropicmapping–IdovetailBenjamin’sconceptionofflâneriewithKeathley’selaborationofcinephiliatoproposeacinematichermeneuticrevolvingaroundpassage.WhiletheGermantitleofTheArcadesProject,Passagen‐Werk,isliterallytranslatedasPassage‐Work,italsohasasecondarymeaningofPassage‐FactoryorPassage‐Plant.88ThissecondarymeaningspeakstoBenjamin’sdualprojectofbothdescribingandproducingpassage.InEnglish,thedoublemeaningof‘plant’asbothafactory,orcentreofoperations,andabotanicalunit,conciselydrawsoutBenjamin’sprojectof“botanizingontheasphalt”89astheconsumptive‐productivematrixfromwhichthisphenomenologyofpassageemerges.InWalterBenjamin:AnAestheticsofRedemption,RichardWolinarguesthatthisphenomenalattentiondistinguishedBenjaminfromcontemporaryMarxists,justasBenjaminhimselfinsistedthat“theallegoricalmodeofintuitionisalwaysbuiltonadevaluedphenomenalworld.”90Asanattempttobypassallegoryaltogetherinorder“toforcethephenomenalsphereitselftoyieldnoumenal

88HeatherMarelleCrickenberger,“TheStructureofAwakening:WalterBenjaminandProgressiveScholarshipinNewMedia”(doctoralthesis,UniversityofSouthCarolina,2007),15,http://tinyurl.com/kzr4sfx.89WalterBenjamin,“TheParisoftheSecondEmpireinBaudelaire,”trans.HarryZohn,inSelectedWritingsVol.4:1938‐1940,ed.HowardEilandandMichaelW.Jennings(Cambridge,MA:Belknap,2006),19.90WalterBenjamin,““Konspekt”fortheBaudelaireStudy,”inWalterBenjaminandGershomScholem,Briefwechsel:1933‐19401(3):1151,citedinRichardWolin,WalterBenjamin:AnAestheticofRedemption(Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994),231.Throughoutthisthesis,wheneverIciteapassageasitoccursinanothersecondarysource,Iwillrepeatthatsource’scitationexactly,evenifitdoesnotconformtotherequirementsoftheChicagoManualofStyle.

24

truth,”91aswellastoinsiston“theirreducibilityofanembodiedexperientialdomain,”92itisquestionablewhetherTheArcadesProjectisreallytheunfinishedmasterpiecethatitisclaimedtobe,orwhetheritsstatusasmasterpieceliespreciselyinthefactthatitisinherentlyunfinishedandunfinishable,justas“thecritico‐textualfieldopenedupbyBenjaminowesitssublimevastnessanduncannyaptnesspreciselytothedetailthathewaswillingtopursueinapassage.”93ForMorton,darkecologyisoperativewhen“scaleisinfiniteinbothdirections:infiniteinsizeandinfiniteindetail,”94andBenjamin’sdarkecologicalpassagebetween“detail”and“sublimevastness,”ofwhichflânerieismerelyoneiteration,dialecticises“thecitationasshock,whichshattersthecontinuumandwhichdoesnotresolveitselfinanysolutionofcontinuity;and,ontheotherhand,thecitationasmontage–theliteraryequivalentofthecollectibleitem–whichputsthefragmentsofthepastinarelationofsimultaneity.”95Syntactically,thismovementfrom“anopenskyofendlessblue”to“millionsofleaves”‐or,inMorton’sterms,“thesecretpassagebetweenbottlesofdetergentandmountainranges”96–producesasuccessionofvertiginoustableaux:

Hissentencesdonotseemtobegeneratedintheusualway;theydonotentail. Eachsentenceiswrittenasitifwerethefirst,orthelast…Mentalandhistoricalprocessesarerenderedasconceptualtableaux;ideasaretranscribedinextremisandtheintellectualperspectivesarevertiginous.Hisstyleofthinking,incorrectlycalledaphoristic,mightbetterbecalledfreeze‐framebaroque.97

Inthefollowingchapter,Idiscussthistendencytowards“freeze‐framebaroque”asasyntacticproclivityforthewayinwhichtheWunderkammer,orcollectionof91Wolin,AestheticofRedemption,92.92MarkHansen,EmbodyingTechnesis:TechnologyBeyondWriting(AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichiganPress,2000),231.93HenrySussman,TheTaskoftheCritic:Poetics,PhilosophyandReligion(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2005),96.94TimothyMorton,TheEcologicalThought(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2012),30.95PhilippeSimay,“TraditionasInjunction:BenjaminandtheCritiqueofHistoricisms,”trans.CarloSalzani,inWalterBenjaminandHistory,ed.AndrewBenjamin(London:BloomsburyAcademic,2006),147.96Morton,EcologyWithoutNature,114.97SusanSontag,“UndertheSignofSaturn,”inASusanSontagReader(London:Penguin,1983),398.

25

wonders,workstounderminethe“allegoricalmodeofintuition.”ForBenjamin,itisinthefigureofthecollectorthatthistemptationtoallegoriseandaphoriseismostpowerfullythwartedanddramatised,andIdevotemysecondchaptertoacasestudyoftheCriterionCollection,aswellasthemoregeneralconnectionbetweencollectionandpassage,inordertoevokethe“domesticinterior”thatpassage‐factoriesproduce,evenastheyconsumeit:

Onthehistoryofthedomesticinterior.Theresidentialcharacteroftheroomsintheearlyfactories,thoughdisconcertingandinexpedient,addsthishomeytouch:thatwithinthespacesonecanimaginethefactoryownerasaquaintfigurineinalandscapeofmachines,dreamingnotonlyofhisownbutoftheirfuturegreatness.Withthedissociationoftheproprietorfromtheworkplacethischaracteristicoffactorybuildingsdisappears.Capitalalienatestheemployertoo,fromhismeansofproduction,andthedreamoftheirfuturegreatnessisfinished.Thisalienationprocessculminatesintheemergenceoftheprivatehome.98

InaninversionofDenby’sdichotomybetweenthe“alienationprocess”andthe“privatehome,”theprodusageofpassageheredictatesthattheretreattoprivate,domesticspaceculminatesinthe“cocooning”thatMilleridentifiedasthedegreezeroofnon‐conversiblespace.InTheArcadesProject,Benjamindescribesthissymbioticrelationshipbetweenanorganismanditsdomicileintermsofthegrowthofashell,ratherthanacocoon(220),butthefigurativeimportisthesame:ifthedissolutionofproto‐cinematictechnologiesacrossanurbanmatrixhassomehowreturnedinthedissolutionofpost‐cinematictechnologiesacrossanurbanmatrix,thensohastherecoursetomodesofdomesticprivacywhosereticulation,individuationandfragilityareproportionatetothatdissolution.Theproto‐cinematicshellhasbecomethepost‐cinematiccocoon,buttherationalefordomesticinteriority–tobothsafeguardagainstandcollectthesensorydispersalofthemetropolis–hasbecome,ifanything,moreurgent.Benjaminsuggestedthatthisnotionofdwellingendedwiththenineteenthcentury,observingthat“thetwentiethcentury,withitsporosityandtransparency,itstendencytowardsthewell‐litandairy,hasputanendtodwellingintheoldsense”(221).YetevenBenjamincouldnothaveimaginedthetwenty‐firstcentury’s“increasinginabilitytoimaginea98Benjamin,ArcadesProject,226.

26

differentfuture,”99northeconditionsofapost‐cinematicmediaecology,which,Shavirosuggests,onlystarttoramifyagainstamilieuofsevereimaginativepaucity,at“atimewhen…theimaginationitselfthreatenstofailus.”100DreamHousesoftheCollective

ForBenjamin,this“domesticinterior”culminatesinthefragile,provisionalinteriorityofdreams:

Inordertounderstandthearcadesfromthegroundup,wesinkthemintothedeepeststratumofthedream;wespeakofthemasthoughtheyhadsunkus.Acollectorlooksatthingsinmuchthesameway.Thingscometostrikethegreatcollector.Howhehimselfpursuesandencountersthem,whatchangesintheensembleofitemsareeffectedbyanewlysuperveningitem–allthisshowshimhisaffairsdissolvedinconstantflux,likerealitiesinthedream.101

Benjamindescribesthesedream‐interiorsas“dreamhousesofthecollective,”arguingthattheyspeaktobothindividualandcollectivedreaminginwaysthatIelaborateinmyfinalchapter.Forthemoment,itissufficienttoobservethatBenjaminembodiestheprodusageofpassageinvolvedintheconstructionandmaintenanceofthisdreamhouseinhisuseoftheword“passage”itself.Ontheonehand,“passage”occurscontinuallythroughoutTheArcadesProject,intheserviceofitsrichcitationaleconomy:“ThefollowingpassageshowsthecrowdasdepictedbyHugo”(286).Atthesametime,itformsacriticalpartoftheProject’snavigationalapparatus:“Namesofarcades:PassagedesPanoramas,PassageVéro‐Dodat,PassageduDésir(leadinginearlierdaystoahouseofillrepute),PassageColbert,PassageVivienne,PassageduPont‐Neuf,PassageduCasire,

PassagedelaRéunion…”(33).Rhetorically,thesecitational‐navigationalthresholdsproduceanambivalenttemporality:foreverypassagethatBenjaminoffersthroughaquotation,orarcade,thereissimultaneouslyananterior99FredricJameson,ArchaeologiesoftheFuture:TheDesireCalledUtopiaandOtherScienceFictions(London:Verso,2005),232,citedinShaviro,PostCinematicAffect,137.100Shaviro,PostCinematicAffect,139.101Benjamin,ArcadesProject,841.

27

movementbacktowardstheauthorofthequotation,ortheoriginalpassengersofthearcade:“Whoeverentersanarcadepassesthroughthegatewayintheoppositedirection.(Or,rather,heventuresintotheintrauterineworld)”(415).HowardEilandandKevinMcLaughlinpointoutintheirfootnotesthatBenjamindoesnotuseanyoftheregularGermantermsfor“gateway”inthisexcerpt.Rather,heusesaportmanteau,Tor‐Weg,whichtranslatestosomethinglike“thresholdaspassage,orpassageasthreshold”(985,note12).Byidentifyingpassagewiththreshold,andviceversa,Benjamincomplicatestheconventionalnotionofpassageasmovementthroughdiscretethresholds,orthresholdsasmarking‐pointsfordiscretepassages.Toexperience,orinhabit,threshold‐passageistobeinperpetualthralltoatransitionalobject,setlooseinan“intrauterineworld.”102HenceBenjamin’sidiosyncraticconceptionofdialectic:“Accordingly,wepresentthenew,thedialecticalmethodofdoinghistory:withtheintensityofadream,topassthroughwhathasbeen,inordertoexperiencethepresentasthewakingworldtowhichthedreamrefers!”103Asaninstanceofthis“methodofdoinghistory,”threshold‐passagetakesonapeculiarpregnancyatthecuspbetweensleepandwaking,wakinglifeanddream‐life:

Ritesdepassage–thisisthedesignationinfolklorefortheceremoniesthatattachtodeathandbirth,tomarriage,pubertyandsoforth.Inmodernlife,thesetransitionsarebecomingevermoreunrecognizableandimpossibletoexperience.Wehavegrownverypoorinthresholdexperiences.Fallingasleepisperhapstheonlysuchexperiencethatremainstous.(Buttogetherwiththis,thereisalsowakingup).And,finally,thereistheebbandflowofconversationandthesexualpermutationsoflove–experiencethatsurgesoverthresholdslikethechangingfiguresofthedream…104

102BarbaraJohnsonmakesasimilarobservationaboutthreshold‐passage,aswellasitsrelationtothetensionbetweentheallegoricalandphenomenalworlds,intermsofBenjamin’strifoldrelationtotheword‘capital’–intermsofcapitalism,ParisasthecapitalofFrance(andthenineteenthcentury)andthecapitallettersthatcommencehisfragments:“Thecapitalletterthus,inasense,allegorizestheunallegorizable”(“TheTaskoftheTranslator,”inMotherTongues:Sexuality,Trials,Motherhood,Translation(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2003),45.103Benjamin,ArcadesProject,838.104Ibid.,494.

28

Passage‐Crisis

Centredon“theebbandflowofconversationandthesexualpermutationsoflove,”AmericanSuckeristhusnotanelegyforcinemaperse,butforacinematicmilieuthathasgrown“verypoorinthresholdexperiences”andinwhichthe“transitions”thatmakeacertainkindofcinematicpleasuremeaningfulare“becomingevermoreunrecognizableandimpossibletoexperience.”WhileAmericanSuckerhasnostalgicrecoursetothe“halfdreamy,halfcritical”spacebetweensleepingandwaking,bywayoftheweesmallhoursofinternetpornography,“HasHollywoodMurderedtheMovies?”metaphorisesthiscuspintermsofcinematicinfrastructure–specifically,intermsofaninabilitytoregisterwheretheworldendsandthescreenbegins.HavingcriticisedJossWhedon’sTheAvengers105forsubjectinghimto“theairlessdigitalspacesofadigitalcity,”Denbyevokes“theclangorousTransformermovies,whicharethemselvesbasedonplastictoys,inwhichdarkwhirlingdigitalmassesbargeintoeachotherorthrashtheirwaythroughbuildings,cities,andpeople,andatwhichthemoviegoer,sittinginthetheater,feelsasifhisheadwererepeatedlybeingsmashedagainstawall…fillingupeveryavailablecornerofpublicspace.”ContinuinghiscritiqueofMichaelBay,Denbydescribeshow,inPearlHarbor,106“thesensationofbeingrushed,dizzied,overwhelmedbytheimages”precludeswhatcouldhavebeen“apassageofbitterlyeloquentmoviepoetry.”Thismovementfrompassagetosensationispresentedasapost‐cinematicalienationeffect,atransplantationofengagementfromthefilmtothefactofseeingit,aswellasthescreeningenvironmentitself:“What,then,isbeingsoldatabigmoviethatiscutthesameway?Theexperienceofgoingtothemovieitself,thesensationofbeingrushed,dizzied,overwhelmedbytheimages.”Ifpartofthesensationthatprecludes–oratleastconfuses–passageisthesheer“experienceofgoingtothemovieitself,”thenthetheatrehasbecomejustanotherclaustrophobicspaceinthefilm–orthescreenhasbecomejustanotherwallof105TheAvengers,directedbyJossWhedon(2012;Burbank,CA:WaltDisneyVideo,2012),DVD.106PearlHarbor,directedbyMichaelBay(2001;Burbank,CA:TouchstoneHomeEntertainment,2001),DVD.

29

thetheatre.InMorton’sterms,Denby’sexperienceofthecinema‐filmtypifiesadarkmediaecology,inwhichatmosphericimmersionissuffocatedandprecluded,justasDenby’sphenomenologyof“temporarysensation”isaphenomenologyofthispost‐cinematicinabilitytodecinematisethetheatre:

manyofushaveloggeddeadlyhourswatchingsuperheroesbashingpeopleoffwalls,carsleapfroggingoneanotherintunnels,gianttoysandmock‐dragonssmashingthroughChicago,andcharmingteenswhooshingaroundcastles.Whatweseeinbaddigitalactionmovieshastheanti‐Newtonianphysicsofacartoon,butdrawnwithrealfigures.Rushed,jammed,broken,andoverloaded,actionnowproducestemporarysensationratherthanemotionandengagement.Afterwardthesesequencesfadeintoblurs,thedifferentblursthemselvesmeldingintooneanother—avaguememoryofhavingbeenbrieflyexcitedratherthantheenduringcontentmentofscenesplayingagainandagaininone’shead.

ForDenby,whatconstitutesthemovementfromNewtoniantoEinsteiniancinematicsisthedissolutionofascreenwhosecontenthasbecome“rushed,jammed,brokenandoverloaded,”spillingoutintothecinema.Onceagain,thisreflectsthepresenceofwhatDensondescribesasadiegeticcamera–acamerathatfailstoregisteritsdiegeticseparatenessfromtheactionthatitdescribes,andsofailstoimpartthatseparatenesstothecinematicaudience,meaningthatcinemaisnolongerconfinedtothescreen,orthespacebetweenthescreenandtheseat,butdispersedeverywhereandnowhere.Atthesametime,themovementfromtheNewtoniandifferentiationofspaceandtimetotheEinsteinianspace‐timecontinuummakesforamilieuinwhichthepostureofNewCriticismnolongersignifies,sincethe“finalnecessity”fortheNewCritic“is,ideally,spaceandtimeforwithdrawal,forcriticaldistancing;absorption,withdrawal,oftenrepeated,areconstantlyproceduresofcriticism.”107Inotherwords,thisisamilieuinwhichclosereading–andcloseviewing–nolongersignifies.Accordingly,Denbyisunabletorecallorfixateontheindividualfilm,insteadhavingrecoursetounitsthatarealternatelysmallerandlargerthanit:“sequences”and“blurs.”107AustinWarren,Connections(AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichiganPress,1970),ix.

30

Denbythusregistersadistinctivelypost‐cinematicandpost‐perceptualdiscorrelationbetweenhissensoryapparatusandthatassumedbytheindividualfilm:insofarasthisisadiscrete“film,”itsdiscretionisoperatingatalevelbeyondhissensorycomprehension.InhisdiscussionofChristopherNolan’sInception,108Denbyarticulatesthisdiscorrelationismas:

awhimsical,over‐articulatenullity—ahugefancyclockthatdisplayswheelsandgearsbutsomehowfailstotellthetime.YetInceptionisnothingmorethanthelogicalproductofarecenttrendinwhichbigmovieshavebeenprogressivelydrainedofsense.Asmuchastwo‐thirdsoftheboxofficeforthesebigfilmsnowcomesfromoverseas,andthestudiosappeartohaveconcludedthatifamoviewereactuallyaboutsomething,itmightriskoffendingsomepartoftheworldwideaudience.AimedatBangkokandBangaloreasmuchasatBangor,ourbigmovieshavebeendefoliatedofcharacter,wit,psychology,localcolor.

BydescribingInceptionasa“hugefancyclockthatdisplayswheelsandgearsbutsomehowfailstotellthetime,”DenbysituatesitasexemplaryofacinematicaestheticinwhichNewtonianmechanicsnolongerramify.Shortlyafter,heobservesthat:“Despiteitsdreamlayers,themovieisnotreallyaboutdreams–theactionyouseeonscreenfeelsnothinglikedreams.”Ifwearecontinuallyunwareofwhetherweareinafilm,Denbysuggests,wearesimilarlyunawareofwhetherweareevenawake.Byconnectingthiscollapsetoamarketthatis“aimedatBangkokandBangaloreasmuchasatBangor,”Denbyevokesamediaecologyinwhichthereisnofundamentaldifferencebetweenfilmandplace.NotonlyisitthepremiseofablockbusterlikeInceptionthatitcanbewatchedinBangkok,BangaloreorBangor,butthatitcanbewatchedabsolutelyanywhere.Inmyconclusion,IdescribeacinetopicanecdoteofmyownwhichrevolvesaroundarecurringdreamIhadofaDVDstorethatcouldbeerectedalmostanywhere;thatis,adreamoftheconditionsthathavemadedreamingimpossible.Asradicalasitmightseem,thiscollapseoffilmandplaceintoanewkindofnon‐place,orany‐place‐whatever,isthelogicalproductofapost‐cinematicecologyinwhich“allactivityisundersurveillancefromvideocamerasandmicrophones,andin

108Inception,directedbyChristopherNolan(2010;Burbank,CA:WarnerHomeVideo,2010),DVD.

31

returnvideoscreensandspeakers,movingimagesandsynthesizedsounds,aredispersedprettymucheverywhere.”109Inmanyways,thisdissolutionoffilmandplaceisthecommondenominatorbetweenproto‐cinematicandpost‐cinematicmediaecologies,andhauntsboththecanonicalandcinephilicpolesofthecanonical‐cinephiliccontinuum.Rosenbaum,EbertandSchraderallpositiontheircanonicalprojectsasresponsestoabewilderingspatialisationofcinema,althoughthesituationisperhapsmostpointedinthecaseofSchrader,whowritesthatheresolvedtoembarkuponhiscanonduringaconversationinwhich“Iremarkedonaformerassistantwho,whentoldtolookupMontgomeryClift,returnedsomeminuteslaterasking,“Whereisthat?”IrepliedthatIthoughtitwasintheHollywoodHills,andhereturnedtohissearchengine.”110Inthatsense,Denby’sresponsetoNolanpre‐emptivelyreadshisaestheticthroughitsincipientremediationonanartifactliketherecentlyreleasediPhoneMovieMapapp(Figure1).111ConfinedtoLondonatpresent,thisappreinventsthecanonof“greatestLondonmovies”bywayof“amapofLondonwithpinsrepresentingover100movielocationsfromtheverybestLondonmovies.UsingGPSyoucanviewyourpositionasyouexplorethemoviesshotinthecity.”LiketheNetflixqueuemapsthatIdiscussinmyfourthchapter,aswellasthebroaderconnectionbetweenGooglegeographiesandpost‐perceptualcinematicexperienceinvokedbySchrader’s“searchengine,”thisappmightbeunderstoodasthemodeinwhichthecanonical‐cinephiliccontinuumramifiesinthe2010s,a“twofoldeffect”inwhich“wehavethecreationofadditionaldetoursandmediations,but…alsothepossibilityof“finding”cinemaevenwithoutnecessarilyhaving“searched”forit.”112

109Shaviro,PostCinematicAffect,6‐7.110Schrader,“CanonFodder,”34.111ChristianHayes,“MovieMapLondonforiPhone,”ClassicFilmShow(blog),April18,2013,http://tinyurl.com/lbsszuo.112FrancescoCasettiandSaraSampietro,“WithEyes,WithHands:TheRelocationofCinemaIntotheiPhone,”inSnickarsandVonderau(eds.),MovingData,26.

32

Althoughitdrawsfromthecanonical‐cinephiliccontinuum,thelanguageofbothcanonicityandcinephiliaareclearlyinadequatefordealingwithsuchanobject,whichmightbeunderstoodasanobjectivecorrelativetotheconceptionofcinetopicpassage,andcinetopicanecdote,thatIelaborateinmyopeningchapter.Amongotherthings,itsuggeststhatthenexusbetweenwalkingandcinematicsightthatcharacterisestheflâneurhasbeenremediatedandrefinedtothatofacinepheur.WhilenobodyhasyetuploadedaYouTubeclipinwhichtheydepictafilmbeingwatchedonamobileplatformastheyretraceeverypassagewithinthatfilm,aprototypeisevidentinCharlieSheen’sreinventionof“four‐dimensionalcinema.”Duringa2011screeningofJaws113onboardhisprivateyacht,Sheenmadesurethatthehorizonoftheoceanonthescreenandthehorizonoftherealoceanmatchedupatalltimes.114Indoingso,henotonly113Jaws,directedbyStevenSpielberg(1975;UniversalCity,CA:UniversalStudios,2000),DVD.114ManyoftheinterviewssurroundingSheen’sinfamousnightonhisyachtwithBrookeMueller,BreeOlsenandJawshavebecomedifficulttofindonline.However,segments,punctuatedbyfrathousecommentary,havebeenuploadedbyVinceManciniat“Frotcast36:FunwithCharlieSheen,”Filmdrunk(blog),http://tinyurl.com/qahk3h3.AsofJuly9,2013,thereisanexcerpt,at35:40,atwhichSheenstates:“Itwasincredible.Ifyouhaven’tdonethis,Iurgeyoutomakeplansanddothistonight.WhatIwantedtodowasIwantedtowatchJawsontheocean,inthedark,andbeafraid.Iwantedtoembracethefearandrelivethemovie.WhatIdidn’tcountonwasthatitbasicallyturnedintoStarTours.Itturnedinto4D…theirhorizonmatchedours…So,itwasanincredibleexperience,andIfelt…youknow,Itookfullcredit,butIhadnoideathatthefourth‐dimensionalaspectofitwouldoccur,anditoccurredinsuchamagicalsensethatwealljustsatthereinawe…”Intermsofworldscreeningvenues,theclosestapproximationofSheen’sfour‐dimensionaltheatreispossiblyBüroOloScheeren’sArchipelagoCinemainNaePieLagoononKuduIsland,Thailand.In“Thailand’sFloatingCinema”(Architizer(blog),March28,2012,http://tinyurl.com/8yozz23)KellyChanexplicatesthisconnectiontotheAmericancinematicsublime:“Thedrive‐inmovietheatermaybeauniquelyNorthAmericaninstitution,buttheiconofthewide‐openAmericanlandscaperecentlyexperienceditsmostheroicrevivalinThailand,leapingforthfromitshumble,groundedoriginsandintotheclearbluewatersofNaiPiLaelagoononKuduIsland.”Intheirpressrelease,BüroOleScheerenmadeitclearthatthecinema’snoveltywasintheserviceofamediaecologyinwhichthearchitectureofcinematicexperiencehasbecomeincreasinglydrift‐oriented,characterisedbytemporalmodularity:“Ascreen,nestledsomewherebetweentherocks.Andtheaudience…floating…hoveringabovethesea,somewhereinthemiddleofthisincrediblespaceofthelagoon,focusedonthemovingimagesacrossthewater:asenseoftemporality,randomness,almostlikedriftwood.Ormaybesomething

33

embodiedtheflâneur’speculiarproclivityfor“transformation,passage,waveaction…swell”–discussedshortly–butcrystalliseditintothepassageofacinepheur,personifyingamediaecologythatitselfapotheosisestheway:

theflâneurperceivestheeventsinthestreetasafilmthatisprojectedonhismind.Modernlifebecomesasequenceofpereptionthatrunsthroughhismindasapotentiallyinfinitefilmofrealityinallofitsvariationsandunforseeablediversity.Viewingphenomenaonthescreenorinthestreet,neithertheflâneurofthecitynorthespectatoroffilmcaneverquiteexhaustthe“objectshecontemplates.Thereisnoendtohiswanderings.”115

AsDenbyrecognises,thereissomethingfantasticandfantasmaticaboutthisinexhaustible“wandering”:

Atthispointthefantasticischasinghumantemperamentanddestiny—whatweusedtocalldrama—fromthemovies.Themerelyhumanhasbeentranscended.Andiftheillusionofphysicalrealityisunstable,theemotionalframeworkofmovieshaschanged,too,andfortheworse.Intime—averyshorttime—thefantastic,nottheillusionofreality,maybecomethedefaultmodeofcinema.

Itisatthismomentatwhich“themerelyhumanhasbeentranscended”thatDenbymovesbeyondEinsteinianspace‐timetowhatDavidHarveydescribesasthe“thirdoption”ofrelational,orobject‐orientedspace,“spaceregarded…asbeingcontainedinobjectsinthesensethatanobjectcanbesaidtoexistonlyinsofarasitcontainsandrepresentswithinitselfrelationshipstoother

morearchitectural:modularpieces,looselyassembled,likeagroupoflittleislandsthatcongregatetoformanauditorium”(“ArchipelagoCinema:AfloatingauditoriumforThailand’sFilmontheRocksFestival:PressRelease,”BüroOleScheeren,March20,2012,http://tinyurl.com/pojj5v5).BüroOleScheeren’sportfoliomightbeunderstoodasanattempttoredresstheissueofthecinematicvenueinthewakeofapost‐cinematiccameraandincludestheMirageCityCinema,CCTVTVCC,theKineticExperienceCinema,theCrystalMediaCentreandtheLosAngelesCountyMuseumofArt.115AnkeGleber,TheArtofTakingAWalk:Flânerie,LiteratureandFilminWeimarCulture(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1998),158.GlebercitesSiegfriedKracauer,TheoryofFilm:TheRedemptionofPhysicalReality(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997),165.

34

objects.”116ForDenby,thediscorrelationbetweencriticandfilm,andconversationandfilm,hascollapsedintoawiderdiscorrelationofperception.Accordingly,hecanonlyunderstandthecanonasacanonofabsences,avastbodyofunseenandunseeablefilms:“Youcannotmournanunmadeproject,butyoucanfeelitsabsencethroughthelongstretchesofaninaneseason.”Threshold‐Crisis

DavidThomson’scompanionarticleinTheNewRepublic,“AmericanMoviesareNotDead:TheyareDying”alsospeakstothecrisisinthreshold‐passagefromwithinthevocabularyofthecanonical‐cinephiliccontinuum.However,whereDenby’sproclivitiesarecinephilicandpassage‐oriented,Thomson’saremorecanonicalandthreshold‐oriented:

AtthestartofAugust2012,theworldwashangingonelectionresults.Well,nottheentireworld.Theelectorateinthiscasewasunder850,thoughthatwasnearlyfourtimesthenumberofpeoplewhohadvotedinthiselectionthelasttime,in2002.TheLondonfilmmagazineSight&Soundwasholdingitsinternationalpollofcriticsandwriterstodeterminethetoptenfilmsevermade,andthebestoneofall.CitizenKanehadheldthatpositionforfiftyyears.

InCulturalCapital:TheProblemofLiteraryCanonFormation,JohnGuilloryidentifiesthisconflationofartisticanddemocraticrepresentationasoneofthelegaciesoftheculturewars:“Thedemocraticmetaphorisquitepotenthere,sincetheconflationofjudgmentwithakindofelectionbetraysthefactthatthetermsofthecanondebateareentirelydeterminedbythebasicassumptionsofliberalpluralism.”117AccordingtoGuillory,thesetermsensureasymbioticrelationshipbetweensyllabusandcanon,wherebythesyllabusappearstobeasitefromwhichtocontestthecanon,butinfactbecomesthepointfromwhichthefantasyofthecanonisgenerated:116DavidHarvey,SocialJusticeandtheCity,rev.ed.(Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,2009),13.117JohnGuillory,CulturalCapital:TheProblemofLiteraryCanonFormation(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995),28.

35

Sofarfrombeingthecasethatthecanondeterminesthesyllabusinthesimplesensethatthesyllabusisconstrainedtoselectfromonlycanonicalworks,itismuchmorehistoricallyaccuratetosaythatthesyllabuspositstheexistenceofthecanonasitsimaginarytotality.Theimaginarylistisprojectedoutofthemultipleindividualsyllabifunctioningwithinindividualpedagogicinstitutionsoverarelativelyextendedperiodoftime.Changingthesyllabuscannotmeaninanyhistoricalcontextoverthrowingthecanon,becauseeveryconstructionofasyllabusinstitutesonceagaintheprocessofcanonformation.118

Inmanyways,theSight&SoundpollfunctionsasoneofthesyllabicinstitutionsthatGuillorydescribes.Establishedin1952bytheBritishFilmInstitute,itgathersprominentthinkersonfilmintoanimaginary,multidisciplinaryinstitution.Eachcontributorisrequiredtoofferalist,orsyllabus,ofthetengreatestfilmsofalltime,whichisthenprojectedintoanimaginarylist,orcanon.Moreover,thefactthattheSight&Soundpollisheldonceadecademeansthatthe“extendedperiodoftime”thatGuillorystipulatescomesintoplayaswell;overthecourseofitssixtyyearexistence,variousmeta‐listshavebeenprojectedoutoftheindividuallists.119Notonlydoesthiscontinualprojectionoflistsfromlistsencapsulatetheimaginary,fantasmaticstatusofthecanon,butitdisplacesandassuagesanxietiesaboutthemoretroublingcontinuitybetweencanonicalandnon‐canonicaltexts,thefactthat“thehistoricalcontinuumofliteratureisthatofacomplexcontinuumofmajorworks,minorworks,worksreadprimarilyinresearchcontexts,worksasyetsimplyshelvedinthearchive…anindefinitenumberofworksofmanifestculturalinterestandaccomplishment.”120AsBenAlperspointsoutin“CanonWars,TheInformationalizationofCinema,andtheSight&SoundPoll,”the“historicalcontinuum”ofcinemahasbecomehardertoignoreinthewakeofdigitalavailability,contributing“toourexperienceoftheSight&Soundpollasakindofmixtape–aculturalproductionwecanbothexperienceandre‐mixourselves–ratherthanasthehermetic

118Ibid.,38.119TheBritishFilmInstituteoffersaselectionofsuchspeculationsandstatisticalresponsestothe2012pollat“TheGreatestFilmsofAllTime:commentfromaroundtheweb,”accessedJune28,2013,http://tinyurl.com/qahzbn7.120Guillory,CulturalCapital,30.

36

declarationofaculturalauthority.”121WhilethatmaywellbeAlpers’experience,itiscertainlynottheconsciousintentionoftheSight&Soundprojectitself,which,forthe2012election,notedthat:“We’reproudthat,thankstoitslongevityandcriticalreach,thispollhascometoberegardedasthemosttrustedguidethereistothecanonofcinemagreats,nottomentionabarometerofchangingcriticaltastes.”122Inordertoensurebarometricaccuracy,the2012Sight&Soundpollonceagainconflateddemocraticandartisticrepresentation,offeringthevotetomorewomen,ethnicgroupsandprofessionalbackgroundsthaneverbefore.Nevertheless,inashort‐circuitbetweensyllabusandcanon,theattemptto“globalise”theSight&Soundlistresultedinanevenmoreglobalsweepofitscanonicalhegemony:“Whattheincreaseinnumbershas–andhasn’t–doneissurprising.”Certainly,CitizenKane123wastoppledfromitssupremacyforthefirsttimeinfiftyyears,butonlytomakewayforVertigo,124anequallyfinefilm,buthardlyarevolutionarycanonicalobject.Notonlydoesthisencapsulatethefalseindependenceofsyllabifromcanons,butitspeakstoafurtherdistinctionGuillorymakesbetweencommunityandassociation.ForGuillory,thefallacyoftheliberalpluralistprojectisthatitseekstorestorethecanonthroughrepresentativecommunitiesofmarginalisedorminoritygroups.However,asGuilloryobserves,“therealquestionbeforeusisnotwhetherthesesubculturalformationsproduceademonstrableregularityofbehaviorincertainsocialgroups(theyobviouslydo),butwhethertheconceptof‘community’accuratelynamesthesiteandmodeoftheseculturalregularities.”By“constitutingnewculturalunities“atthelevelofsubculturalcommunity,theliberalpluralistcanon,likethetraditionalcanon,isunabletodescribe“theeffect

121BenAlpers,“CanonWars,TheInformationalizationofCinema,andtheSight&SoundPoll,”U.S.IntellectualHistoryBlog(blog),August27,2012,http://tinyurl.com/nl8xvcy.122“Sight&SoundGreatestFilmsPoll2012,”BritishFilmInstituteonline,accessedJuly9,2013,http://tinyurl.com/cne4uca.123CitizenKane,directedbyOrsonWelles(1941;NewYork:TurnerHomeEntertainment,2000),DVD.124Vertigo,directedbyAlfredHitchcock(1958;Hollywood,CA:UniversalStudios,2012),DVD.

37

ofanyformofassociationwhichdoesnotentailtheassumptionofculturalunity.”125InGuillory’sterms,thesymbioticrelationshipbetweensyllabusandcanonnotonlyseekstoassuageanxietiesabouttheglobalcontinuumbetweencanonicalandnon‐canonicaltexts,buttoredressthelocaldiscontinuumwithincanonicalandnon‐canonicaltexts,bywayofthehomogeneouscriticalcommunity.ItisthiscriticalcommunitythatformstheobjectofThomson’sdeath‐critique–and,whileitisrelatedtotheconversationalcommunity,orcriticalconversation,thatDenbymourns,itisgivenaslightlydifferentinflectioninthelightofGuillory’sdistinctionbetweencommunityandassociation.UnlikeDenby,Thomsonoffersafairlyspecificandconfinedcanonicalobject–the1940s,when“WorldWarIIproducedacommunityatthemovies,andaninnocentimmersioninfantasywhentherewasnoshameorironytocurbit.”Thereafter,Thomsonsuggests,cinemahasbeenindecline:thecultureofdistraction,usheredinbytelevision,andthecultureofdeconstruction,usheredinbytheinstitutionalisationofcinephiliaasfilmstudies,graduallybetrayedthatgeneration“whowerekidsasmoviesgrewup…therehasneverbeenagenerationtowhomthemoviesmeantmore.”WhileDenbydisregardscinephiliaasamethodologyforcontemplatingcinema,Thomsonexplicitlydichotomisesthem,suggestingthatanybodywhoparticipatesincontemporarycinephilia–especiallythroughtheCriterionandNetflixplatforms,discussedinmythirdandfourthchapter‐iscomplicitinthedemiseofthistraditional,communal,cinematicexperience.Againstthisdeclinenarrative,however,amoreambivalentandsophisticatednarrativeemerges.ThomsonoffersOnTheWaterfront,12AngryMenandLongDay’sJourneyIntoNightasasummaryandswansongforthisGoldenAge,acollectivesynecdocheforitspassing.126ThomsonpointsoutthatthecommondenominatorbetweenthesefilmsiscinematographerMikhailKaufman,brother125Guillory,CulturalCapital,34.126OnTheWaterfront,directedbyEliaKazan