avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags

Affron, Charles. “Performing Performing: Irony and Affect.”  Cinema Journal Vol. 20, No. 1 (Autumn, 1980): pp. 42-52. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1224970>.

Charles Affron argues that the 1934 version of Imitation of Life does not require its intended white middle class audience to engage in “a textual deconstruction of performance” when watching the narrative. Unlike the later version, in which the spectator must personally redefine the conventions of sentimental expression, it is not necessary with the original film, at least for the intended viewers.  Affron feels that the film is straightforward in its stagings and attitudes about the emotional centers of the text, race and motherhood.  Claudette Colbert, the author believes, can easily be perceived as a model of clarity. She is intelligent, witty, and tactful.  Bea, on the other hand, seems to lacks all of these characteristics, never seeming to know where things are, who people are, and who she herself is. The film’s title bears no reference to Bea, rather it alludes to the black characters of Peola and Delilah. Through master-shots and close-ups, action-reaction shots, and the obviously codified décor, the film reflects negatively on the imitative life of the black women who doesn’t know her place.   However, the white viewer is able to overlook this aspect of the film, too engaged with the ‘white plot’ of Bea’s career success and the failure of her relationship with her daughter Jessie. 

This article affirms hooks’s notion of the “oppositional gaze.” Although it first appears as if Affron goes against her theory when he states that there is no need for a textual deconstruction of the film, the author makes it clear that he is only referring to the intended white middle class audience.  The black female viewer, unable to overlook the ‘black plot’ of the film, therefore, must redefine the storyline and relationships between the black characters on her own.

Intermediality in theatre and performance / edited by Freda Chapple & Chiel Kattenbelt. [9042016299 ] Amsterdam ; New York : Rodopi, 2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN2193.E86 I58 2006
 
Intermediality in Theatre and Performance is basically a book about theatre and its various interactions with other forms of media. Most of the essays discuss theatre as the main focus, and thus have no relevance for my argument; however, one essay discusses small screens in relation to television texts, and thus was somewhat of find for me in an otherwise very random source. Robin Nelson notes here an intermediality between television, theatre, and “PC culture,” which essentially marks the creation of self-aware participants who experience and perceive images differently based on their absorption of these interlocking media. I especially like the concept of “hypermediacy” presented in this book: the idea that we can recognize and even enjoy the realization that the images coming to us are mediated in one way or another. The author claims that both older and new media evoke some degree of hypermediacy, and strongly suggests that new media tend to hold a greater degree of hypermediacy. The author’s discussions on narrative temporality displacement in hypermediacy hold little value for me here, but the pages devoted to screen space and time provide good basic examples for my inquiry.

One thing that seems to be missing from this exploration is a thorough discussion on the implications of intermediacy. The author describes it to us, and it’s not a difficult concept to understand; but, fundamentally, what does it mean for the interaction between old and new media? What’s at stake here? Nelson admittedly backs away from a discussion of what will happen to TV in the future, aside from meekly stammering that TV will probably still thrive after the boom of the Internet/computers had died down; yet why not debate what intermediacy could do to/for television, in relation to new media? The discussion was definitely lacking in this area, and I would have liked to see Nelson do more than just describe a difference between television and new media.

Ultimately, I think this source can prove useful, but it won’t be a major source for my investigation. The concept of hypermediacy holds some interest for me, and I believe is worth exploring in different contexts. I also plan to utilize the brief discussion on small screen manipulation (the idea that we can take our iPods, iPhones, etc., and watch a movie in the palm of our hand, thereby greatly altering how we consume that screen and interact with it) that Nelson employs.