DOCSLIB.ORG

Hospitality and the Unsettled Viewer: Hitchcock's Shadow Scenes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hospitality and the Unsettled Viewer: Hitchcock's Shadow Scenes Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article-pdf/25/1 (73)/1/486724/CO73_01Schantz.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Hospitality and the Unsettled Viewer: Hitchcock’s Shadow Scenes Ned Schantz This essay participates in a perhaps paradoxical project of con- solidating some essential aspects of the Hitchcockian uncanny — paradoxical because the uncanny is no consolidating force — under the tent of bad hospitality. It is a site where, as we will see, the uncanny experience of “intellectual uncertainty” takes a dis- tinctively social form.1 Gathered there we can find Alfred Hitch- cock’s terrible and singular hosts — the Nazi mother in Notorious (US, 1946), Brandon Shaw in Rope (US, 1948), Phillip Vandamm in North by Northwest (US, 1959), and the surprisingly polite Nor- man Bates in Psycho (US, 1960) — as well as a gallery of less individ- uated bad guests, recurrent figures like the spy, the blackmailer, the double, and the prying camera itself. From their encounters issue the lost bearings, humiliation, and dispossession that define the world of Hitchcock as painfully small and uninhabitable if also, or even as a consequence, strangely open to new kinds of social claims. It is a world very much in transition, one in which ritual and manners no longer ease the navigation of social real- Camera Obscura 73, Volume 25, Number 1 doi 10.1215/02705346 -2009 - 013 © 2010 by Camera Obscura Published by Duke University Press 1 Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article-pdf/25/1 (73)/1/486724/CO73_01Schantz.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 2 • Camera Obscura ity or guarantee status on terms not nakedly brutal and shame- less. Thus in Hitchcock’s work we have something approaching a systematic test of modern sociability, a test, moreover, in which a viewer ambiguously takes part as at once a guest and a host of nar- rative cinema.2 This is a capacious subject, but the present essay grows out of a particular problem a viewer has in feeling at home with a Hitch- cock film: a recurring instability in the diegesis at the level of the event, one that arises from the tendency of strong plot alternatives to overshadow certain key moments.3 Such alternatives insistently emerge in a precise context of failed hospitality — as the murder- ous enforcement of male spatial monopoly by the would-be master of his domain — and so powerfully that I find myself hard-pressed to resist their command on critical attention. Did Maxim not deliberately murder his first wife in the backstory of Rebecca (US, 1940)? He does in the novel!4 Does Johnnie not try to push Lina out of the car and over the cliff at the end of Suspicion (US, 1941)? Does Scottie not hurl Judy off the tower at the end of Vertigo (US, 1958)?5 To be sure, repressive forces such as censorship and the star system may account for the loss of these scenes, but we should not conflate an explanation of the cause with an explanation of the effects. And no doubt in each of these preliminary examples the line of defense would be distinct: in ascending order of suspicious- ness, Vertigo’s murder is not shown, Suspicion’s murder is merely attempted (perhaps ambiguously) and then denied, while Rebecca’s murder occurred in the past and is therefore only contradicted by the patriarch’s own testimony. But it may be such diversity that has kept the critical appreciation of this recurring problem dispersed and unformulated.6 To be sure, an alertness to the dubious status of Hitchcockian diegesis is already well in evidence in the founda- tional work of Robin Wood, who, in addition to dismissing Maxim’s story of Rebecca’s “accidental” death, has questioned the entire plot of Vertigo on the well-known basis that we never see Scottie get down from the gutter in the opening scene.7 But it is my hope that by focusing directly on what I call the shadow scenes of Hitchcock we might discern their operations more fully, which may lead in Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article-pdf/25/1 (73)/1/486724/CO73_01Schantz.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Hospitality and the Unsettled Viewer • 3 turn to some truly new discoveries. Such scenes crowd failed spaces of hospitality, where so much has been shut out. Defined most broadly as any scene felt but not seen, and therefore including scenes both elided and replaced, the Hitch- cockian shadow scene troubles narratological classification. One relevant concept might be that of the “disnarrated” as any event told expressly not to have occurred, but what I am talking about has nothing “express” about it; instead, these crucial nonevents are conjured powerfully by our own situational expectations and left to linger by the manifest incompleteness, confusion, or improb- ability of what seems in fact to occur.8 Neither can these flimsy cover stories consistently dissolve into the subjective imperatives of unreliable narration. As we will see later, even Rebecca’s Maxim de Winter, surely an unreliable narrator, hardly narrates Rebecca’s death by, or as, himself. And if the false flashback of Stage Fright (UK, 1950) confirms the power of the camera to narrate, the gen- eral disappointment with that same stunt shows equally that the scenes of most abiding interest demand a narration that is unreli- ably unreliable. It is also important to note that Hitchcock’s encroaching shadow scenes are by no means always singular but may well inti- mate a wild proliferation of alternatives. A useful example is Guy Haines’s night call in Strangers on a Train (US, 1951), in which the ambiguous terms of hospitality function as a kind of plot multiplier. Recall the situation: Guy (Farley Granger) is a cuckolded tennis star with political aspirations and an eye on a senator’s daughter as a spousal upgrade. Boarding a train at the start of the film, he meets a fan of his, the playboy Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker), who invites him to lunch in his private compartment. There Bruno’s personal insight and unrestrained imagination lead to a proposi- tion that Guy, to his later regret, treats as a joke: exchange murders, “crisscross,” with Bruno killing Guy’s wife, Miriam (Kasey Rogers), and Guy killing Bruno’s father ( Jonathan Hale). It is a proposition that importantly leverages Bruno’s hospitality, subjecting Guy to the law of reciprocity. As a master of denial, however, Guy avoids recognizing his own complicity when Bruno goes through with his Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article-pdf/25/1 (73)/1/486724/CO73_01Schantz.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 4 • Camera Obscura Bruno (Robert Walker) in his father’s bed end of the deal and strangles Miriam, but he is finally hounded by Bruno into taking action. And so one night Guy collects the gun Bruno has sent him, slips out the fire escape away from the police (shadowing him since Miriam’s death), and arrives at the Anthony estate as at once trespasser and invited guest. Will he kill Bruno’s father? In the novel, he does.9 Like Daphne du Maurier, Patricia Highsmith is not afraid to show how dangerous an ambitious man can be when threatened. In the film, when Guy arrives, Hitchcock introduces a major twist: instead of shooting into the father’s bed, Guy whispers a warning to “Bruno’s father” about his son, only to see Bruno himself rise up in bed in his father’s place, having caught Guy in his betrayal. Guy takes the opportunity to renounce Bruno, but we should see this gesture for the meaningless nonevent that it is, an empty performance of righteousness for the benefit of the audience, or for Guy as his own audience, since he cannot pos- sibly expect the implacable Bruno to acquiesce. Against this feeble spectacle no fewer than five powerful shadow scenes compete, each arising from a different interpretation of Guy’s purpose in being Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article-pdf/25/1 (73)/1/486724/CO73_01Schantz.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Hospitality and the Unsettled Viewer • 5 there, and each entailing a different distribution of the roles of hospitality:10 1. Warn the father — what he attempts but fails to do. In this scene Guy plays the good guest to the official master of the house, rejecting the validity of Bruno’s criminal invitation, and this fantasy becomes the cover story that earns him credit (in his own eyes, it seems, if not necessarily ours) for doing the right thing without assuming the risk of exposure that would actually entail. 2. Kill the father — again, the plot of the novel, which is about a very different kind of weakness than the film: the inability to resist a stronger will, rather than the inability to recognize the ferocity of one’s own. This version obviously reverses the distribution of the first shadow scene, with Guy acknowledging and indeed bringing about Bruno’s upstart status as the new master of the Anthony estate. 3. Sleep with Bruno — Guy’s attraction to Bruno is well established by the film and well rehearsed by its critics. This shadow scene is supported by another Hitchcock addition, an otherwise rather arbitrary appearance of a dog on the stairs as Guy ascends to the bedroom. When the dog’s growls give way to licks on a sudden cut, we have to wonder if this unexpected canine hospitality means that the dog recognizes Guy. Unlike murder, sex is repeatable with the same partner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notions of the Gothic in the Films of Alfred Hitchcock. CLARK, Dawn Karen
    Notions of the Gothic in the films of Alfred Hitchcock. CLARK, Dawn Karen. Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/19471/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version CLARK, Dawn Karen. (2004). Notions of the Gothic in the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Masters, Sheffield Hallam University (United Kingdom).. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk Sheffield Hallam University Learning and IT Services Adsetts Centre City Campus Sheffield S1 1WB Return to Learning Centre of issue Fines are charged at 50p per hour REFERENCE ProQuest Number: 10694352 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10694352 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Notions of the Gothic in the Films of Alfred Hitchcock Dawn Karen Clark A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Philosophy July 2004 Abstract The films of Alfred Hitchcock were made within the confines of the commercial film industries in Britain and the USA and related to popular cultural traditions such as the thriller and the spy story.
    [Show full text]
  • View Films of Alfred Hitchcock. Syllabus
    RTF 370 Film Analysis and Criticism Topic: The Films of Alfred Hitchcock (Spring 2021) Professor: Thomas Schatz (CMA 6.120; [email protected]) Office hours: Monday and Wednesday, 3:30 - 5:00 pm, and by appointment. Teaching Assistant: Alex Brannan ([email protected]) Office hours: Tuesday, 12:00 - 1:30pm and by appointment The general plan for the class in the time of COVID: This is a “hybrid” course that initially is being conducted online (via Zoom) and in a “synchronous” mode – that is, with our class meetings held at the scheduled time (TTH, 9:30 - 10:45). We may convert to in-person class meetings later in the term, should the COVID situation improve and permit that much-desired adjustment. During this online phase, I expect you to attend (with your cameras on, please) and to participate. I will record our sessions for back-up purposes, but please plan to approach this as you would a regular on-campus UT class in terms of attendance and participation. All of the weekly screenings – both the required and recommended screenings – are available to you online. I also will be posting clips that I plan to use in class, which I will encourage you to screen before our class sessions. I’m also expecting you to conduct research for your final paper online, recognizing the obvious constraints due to the coronavirus. We will discuss research strategies throughout the semester, and especially during the latter half of the term. Course description: This course examines the career of Alfred Hitchcock, focusing on the films that he directed as well as the social, cultural and industrial conditions under which those films were produced.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitchcock & the Presence of Portraits
    Hitchcock & the Presence of Portraits Presented by Clara Fulkerson Undergraduate Philosophy Major Minors: Film and French What is an “auteur”? ➢ A term in film theory to describe “authorship” ➢ Much like the originality expressed by authors of literature, the style, content, and themes in film can be recognizably unique to one filmmaker ○ Like the creative distinctions between Mark Twain and Charles Dickens Examples of auteurs: Quentin Tarantino “Kill Bill Vol. 1” (2003) “Pulp Fiction” (1994) “Reservoir Dogs” (1992) Tim Burton “Edward Scissorhands” (1990) “Alice in Wonderland” (2010) “Sweeney Todd” (2007) Wes Anderson “The Life Aquatic” (2004) “Moonrise Kingdom” (2012) “The Darjeeling Limited” (2007) ➢ Hitchcock, perhaps unknowingly most of his career, was a pioneer of auteurism, with stylistic repetitions across his filmography. ➢ Notable tropes are plot narratives (espionage), suspenseful tones (Bernard Herrmann, scene pacing), psychological themes (phobias, fetishes), and Hitchcock cameos. German Expressionism “The Lodger” (1927) “These enigmatic images in Hitchcock’s films–– Spellbound’s savaged eyes, Blackmail’s jester, The Trouble with Harry’s portrait of a dead man, Torn Curtain’s silent museum architecture and artifacts, and I Confess’s guilt-inducing courtroom Christ–– function like omniscient observers, staring eyes, as it were, dispassionately framing the action, gazing on it and at us while provoking our own individual reactions and interpretations” - Marc Strauss Painted Jester: Notes on the Visual Arts in Hitchcock’s Films
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    Contents Preface to the Second Edition viii Preface to the First Edition xi A Brief Chronology xiii Notes on Contributors xv Acknowledgments xx Introduction xxiii part one: Taking Hitchcock Seriously 1 1. Hitch and His Public 17 jean douchet 2. Hitchcock’s Imagery and Art 25 maurice yacowar 3. Retrospective 35 robin wood 4. Hitch as Matrix-Figure: Hitchcock and Twentieth-Century Cinema 47 john orr part two: Hitchcock in Britain 69 5. Hitchcock’s The Lodger 75 lesley w. COPYRIGHTEDbrill MATERIAL 6. Criticism and/as History: Rereading Blackmail 85 leland poague 7. Alfred Hitchcock’s Murder!: Theater, Authorship, and the Presence of the Camera 96 william rothman 8. Consolidation of a Classical Style: The Man Who Knew Too Much 107 elisabeth weis 9. Through a Woman’s Eyes: Sexuality and Memory in The 39 Steps 114 charles l. p. silet 10. Rematerializing the Vanishing “Lady”: Feminism, Hitchcock, and Interpretation 126 patrice petro 99781405155564_2_toc.indd781405155564_2_toc.indd vvii 111/10/20081/10/2008 112:02:362:02:36 PPMM part three: Hitchcock in Hollywood 137 11. All in the Family: Alfred Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt 145 james mclaughlin 12. The Moral Universe of Hitchcock’s Spellbound 156 thomas hyde 13. Notorious: Perversion par Excellence 164 richard abel 14. Strangers on a Train 172 robin wood part four: The Later Films 183 15. Hitchcock’s Rear Window: Reflexivity and the Critique of Voyeurism 199 robert stam and roberta pearson 16. Finding the Right Man in The Wrong Man 212 marshall deutelbaum 17. Male Desire, Male Anxiety: The Essential Hitchcock 223 robin wood 18.
    [Show full text]
  • Something Rotten in Alfred Hitchcock's Frenzy
    The Murderer in the Garden: Something Rotten in Alfred Hitchcock’s Frenzy K. Brenna Wardell In 1733, the English artist William Hogarth completed a series of paintings titled A Rake’s Progress, a sequel to his previous series, A Harlot’s Progress (1731–32). In A Rake’s Progress, Hogarth dramatizes the misadventures of young Tom Rakewell, who loses his money, health, and sanity in London. In the third painting, as Rakewell’s downward “progress” becomes explicit, Hogarth shows him in a tavern, his body drunkenly splayed over a chair while a prostitute expertly steals from him. The painting’s mise-en-scène conveys not only Rakewell’s individual dissolution but general chaos and decay, from the broken crockery, discarded clothing, and quarrelling customers to the marks on many of the women’s faces— possibly beauty spots, but also potential indications of venereal disease, as Jenny Uglow has argued, thereby foreshadowing Rakewell’s future of disease and madness (252-253). In the background a prankster sets fre to a map of the world—her act hinting at universal destruction. That the tavern pictured was a real location—the Rose Tavern in London’s Covent Garden—created an immediate jolt of reality for viewers of A Rake’s Progress while reinforcing Rakewell’s danger: the Rose, and Covent Garden as a whole, was infamous for vice and criminal activity. The Garden’s long, diverse history suffuses the Rose painting—a history including serving as a convent garden, fashionable residence, center of a fruit and vegetable market, and the locale of entertainments from theatres to brothels.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitchcock and Feminist Theory
    FAAAM, le 4 avril 2008, Taïna Tuhkunen [email protected] Tania Modleski (1941 - ) Alfred Hitchcock (1899 -1980) Tania Modleski, The Women Who Knew Too Much : Hitchcock and Feminist Theory Tania Modleski, The Women Who Knew Too Much : Hitchcock and Feminist Theory, New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1988. Tania Modleski, Hitchcock et la théorie féministe: Les femmes qui en savaient trop, trad. Par XX, Paris: L'Harmattan, collection « Champs Visuels Etrangers », 2002. The seven films under Tania Modleski's critical eye : Blackmail (Chantage) – 1929; Murder (Meurtres) – 1930; Rebecca – 1940; Notorious (Les Enchaînés) – 1946; Rear Window (Fenêtre sur cour) – 1954; Vertigo (Sueurs froides) – 1958; Frenzy – 1972. Introduction « “Hitchcock betrays a resemblance to one of his favorite character types – the person who exerts an influence from beyond the grave” (1). « Hithcock's great need (exhibited throughout his life as well in his death) to insist on and exert authorial control may be related to the fact that his films are always in danger of being subverted by females whose power is both fascinating and seemingly limitless. » (1) « [I]dentification on the part of women at the cinema is much more complicated than feminist theory has understood : far from being masochistic, the female spectator is always 1 caught up in a double desire, identifying at one and the same time not only with the passive (female) object, but with the active (usually) male subject. (2) «[O]ne of my book's main theses is that time and again in Hitchcock films, the strong fascination and identification with femininity revealed in them subverts the claims to mastery and authority not only in the male characters but of the director himself.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon State University L'auteur Ou L'artiste: Hitchcock and The
    Oregon State University L’Auteur ou l’Artiste: Hitchcock and the Presence of Portraits Clara J. Fulkerson Studies in Film: Hitchcock (FILM 452) Professor Jon Lewis Presented May 18, 2018 Abstract This research paper, “L’auteur ou l’artiste?”, examines the films of Alfred Hitchcock ​ ​ and their importance amongst the canon of cinema. In an analysis of his three film periods (British, Early Hollywood, and Late Hollywood), the aim of this research is to uncover the significance of the consistent inclusion of portraits throughout his films. Recognized as an auteur amongst cinephiles, Hitchcock has been deemed the “Master of Suspense”. Through ​ specifically observing the looming and significant portraits in the films “The Lodger” (1927), “Rebecca” (1940), and “Vertigo” (1958), it becomes apparent that the unnerving presence of art, particularly portraits, is one of the main factors of Hitchcock’s mastery. The interviews between Hitchcock and François Truffaut will be applied to this claim, as well as Tania Modleski’s “The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and ​ Feminist Theory“, Aaron Rich’s “The Dark Galleries: A Museum Guide to Painted Portraits in ​ Film Noir, Gothic Melodramas, and Ghost Stories of the 1940s and 1950s”, and various other scholarly articles cited within the paper. While Hitchcock’s creative implement of portraits help define him as an auteur, it also contributes to the established precedence for any future ​ ​ horror or suspense films, as well as demonstrates a filmmaker’s ability to omit a unique and creative rhetoric. - Clara Fulkerson L’auteur ou l'artiste? Introduction Filmmaking may depict itself as inherently escapist, providing a portal into a universe made up of moving pictures where all the heroes are beautiful.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock
    ISSN 1751-8229 Volume Six, Number Three The Sublime Stupidity of Alfred Hitchcock Kyle Barrowman - graduate of the Cinema Studies program at Columbia College in Chicago. Over the course of a career that spanned six decades, beginning in England in the 1920s as the silent cinema was approaching its apex and ending in the 1970s amidst the postclassical American cinema revolution, Alfred Hitchcock succeeded in transcending time, genre, even cinema itself. Based on the fecundity of his prolific canon, “Hitchcock” has become totemic for a remarkably variegated (if not antinomic) series of theoretical precepts in the film studies community, all symptomatic of the particular academic zeitgeist. Beginning with the idealistic and cinephiliac veneration of Hitchcock-as-auteur in the 1950s and 1960s, which reached its zenith with the publications of Robin Wood’s (1965) heraldic auteurist analysis and Francois Truffaut’s (1967) book-length interview, Hitchcock was eventually colonized by “Second Wave Feminism” in the 1970s and 1980s, portrayed as a misogynist whose films were viewed as ideologically-predetermined symptoms of an antediluvian male chauvinist and whose filmmaking style allegedly exemplified the intrinsic problems of classical Hollywood storytelling.1 As the feminist colonization of Hitchcock gave way to more tempered appraisals of his filmography, scholars in the field of “Hitchcock Studies” began trying to consolidate past Hitchcock scholarship in an effort to encompass the totality of Hitchcock’s artistry and its hermeneutic implications. Tania Modleski (2005/1988), for example, sees the Hitchcock oeuvre as housing a clash between authorship and ideology that challenges and decenters, but does not completely devalue, the notion of directorial authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitchcock's Appetites
    McKittrick, Casey. "The Hitchcock cameo: Fat self-fashioning and cinematic belonging." Hitchcock’s Appetites: The corpulent plots of desire and dread. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 43–64. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 28 Sep. 2021. <http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501311642.0006>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 28 September 2021, 05:54 UTC. Copyright © Casey McKittrick 2016. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 2 The Hitchcock cameo: Fat self-fashioning and cinematic belonging t the height of his popularity, Hitchcock was perhaps as renowned for Athe cameo appearances he made in his fi lms as he was for the fi lms themselves. While the cameos went largely unremarked by American audiences in the 1940s, by the early to mid-1950s, spectators had learned to look for the director ’ s brief appearances. 1 At this point, the game of searching for the director became de rigueur for moviegoers, so much so that Hitchcock worried that the preoccupation with “ fi nding Hitchcock ” was detracting from his audience ’ s narrative engagement, and consequently made sure to place these cameos early in the fi lm. David Sterritt, in his The Films of Alfred Hitchcock , is one of the fi rst Hitchcock critics to appreciate the complexity of the textual play that Hitchcock ’ s cameos occasion, both as visual markers of the director ’ s relation to his own characters and to the
    [Show full text]
  • The Acoustic Mirror: the Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema
    Page iii The Acoustic Mirror The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema Theories of Representation and Difference KAJA SILVERMAN General Editor: Teresa de Lauretis INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS Bloomington and Indianapolis Page iv Portions of chapters 1, 2, and 5 have appeared in somewhat different form in Wide Angle 8, nos. 1 and 2 (1985), Iris 3, no. 1 (1985), and Mary Ann Doane, Patricia Mellencamp, and Linda Williams, eds., Re-vision: Essays in Feminist Film Criticism (Los Angeles: AFI, 1984). © 1988 by Kaja Silverman All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Silverman, Kaja. The acoustic mirror. (Theories of representation and difference) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Women in motion pictures. 2. Moving-pictures—Psychological aspects. 3. Psychoanalysis. 4. Voice. I. Title. II. Series. PN1995.9.W6S57 1988 791.43'09'09352042 87-45834 ISBN 0-253-30284-6 ISBN 0-253-20474-7 (pbk.) 4 5 6 7 8 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 Page v Contents Acknowledgments vii Preface viii [1] Lost Objects and Mistaken Subjects: A Prologue 1 [2] Body Talk 42 [3] The Fantasy of the Maternal Voice: Paranoia and Compensation 72 [4] The Fantasy of the Maternal Voice: Female Subjectivity and the Negative Oedipus Complex 101 [5] Disembodying the Female Voice: Irigaray, Experimental Feminist Cinema, and Femininity 141 [6] The Female Authorial Voice 187 Notes 235 Index 254 Page vi For Michael and Philosophy on the Telephone.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantis Junio 2008
    Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos This issue is dedicated to the fond memory of ENRIQUE ALCARAZ VARÓ (1940-2008) Vol. 30, núm. 1 Junio 2008 30.1 (June 2008) 30.1 (Junio 2008) EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Consejo de Redacción General Editor: Angela Downing Universidad Complutense de Madrid Assistant Editor: Ludmila Urbanová Managing Editor: Marta Carretero University of Brno Universidad Complutense de Madrid Book Reviews Editor: Clara Calvo Editor’s Assistant: Juan Rafael Zamorano Universidad de Murcia Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universität Bremen Style supervisor: Jorge Arús Hita Universidad Complutense de Madrid ASSOCIATE EDITORS Editores Adjuntos Andrew Blake Heinz Ickstadt University of Winchester Freie Universität Berlin Martin Bygate J. Hillis Miller Lancaster University University of California at Irvine Teresa Fanego Susheila M. Nasta Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Open University Fernando Galván Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Universidad de Alcalá de Henares Universidad de La Rioja EDITORIAL BOARD Consejo Científico Joan C. Beal Rachel Bowlby Graham D. Caie University of Sheffield University College London University of Glasgow Jesús Benito Sánchez Kris Van den Branden Gordon Campbell Universidad de Valladolid Katholieke Universiteit Leuven University of Leicester Marcella Bertuccelli Papi Mario Brdar Isabel Carrera Università di Pisa Josip Juraj Strossmayer University Universidad de Oviedo Nilufer E. Bharucha Laurel J. Brinton Shirley Chew University of Mumby University of British Columbia University of Leeds Clare Birchall Manuel Broncano Robert Clark Middlesex University Universidad de León University of East Anglia Anita Biressi Jorge L. Bueno Thomas Claviez Roehampton University Universidad de Vigo University of Stavanger Maggie Ann Bowers Christopher S. Butler Tom Cohen University of Portsmouth University of Wales University of Albany Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre Jacqueline Hurtley Ruth Parkin-Gounelas Universidad de Murcia Universitat de Barcelona Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Francisco J.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Alfred Hitchcock's Manipulation of His
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Wits Institutional Repository on DSPACE “DIRECTOR OF AUDIENCES”: A STUDY OF ALFRED HITCHCOCK’S MANIPULATION OF HIS AUDIENCES. Rebecca Webber (97 00 33 7X) A dissertation approved for the degree of Master of Arts by the University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg, 2007 Abstract This Master’s thesis identifies and elucidates upon the motifs/themes/images, which Hitchcock utilized in his films to ultimately manipulate and thereby direct his audience’s perception and understanding of his films’ narratives. The devices that are described and investigated in detail in this thesis are found to be recurrent in most of Alfred Hitchcock’s films. That highlights the question: why are they recurrent? What purpose do they serve? I believe that the answer to these questions is that these devices were used by Hitchcock to serve the end of manipulating the audience. The efficacy of these devices as used by Alfred Hitchcock is elaborated on in each chapter that addresses each motif in turn. Each chapter which deals with one of the motifs Alfred Hitchcock used in his manipulation of his audience contains examples from films and investigates how the motifs are used within each film to manipulate audience comprehension. These examples are strengthened with theory from academics, theorists and critics who have made a life-long study of Hitchcock. My theoretical framework includes audience research and Metz’s theory of ‘suturing’ which addresses the meaning of camera position and the different point of view that the audience take up.
    [Show full text]