Introduction: Depicting Love in Cinema
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction: Depicting Love in Cinema 1 . Mike Featherstone. ‘Love and Eroticism: An Introduction’ Theory, Culture and Society 15, no. 1 (1998): 2. 2 . David Bordwell, Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson. The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985: 16. 3 . Kenneth MacKinnon. ‘Male Spectatorship and the Hollywood Love Story’ Journal of Gender Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 125; James J. Dowd and Nicole R. Pallotta. ‘The End of Romance: Demystification of Love in the Post- Modern Age’ Sociological Perspectives 43, no. 4 (2000): 554. 4 . Stanley Cavell. Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981; Mark D. Rubinfeld. Bound to Bond: Gender, Genre and the Hollywood Romantic Comedy . Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001; Tamar Jeffers McDonald. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre . London: Wallflower, 2007. 5 . See for example, McDonald. Romantic Comedy , the full title of whose monograph on the romantic comedy draws attention to the widely known structure of the genre. See also Stacey Abbott and Deborah Jermyn. ‘Introduction: A Lot Like Love’ in Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema , edited by Stacey Abbott and Deborah Jermyn, 1–8. London: I. B. Tauris, 2009; Kristine Brunovska Karnick. ‘Commitment and Reaffirmation in Hollywood Romantic Comedy’ in Classical Hollywood Comedy , edited by Kristine Brunovska Karnick and Henry Jenkins, 123–146. New York: Routledge, 1995. It ought to be noted that this formula is a simplistic overview of the genre and elements, such as the genders, are interchangeable. The purpose here, however, is to illustrate the familiarity audiences have with the genre via this formula, which gives a basic illus- tration to the importance of companionate love. 6 . David Shumway. Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and the Marriage Crisis. New York: New York University Press, 2003. 7 . Jean-Loup Bourget. ‘Romantic Dramas of the Forties: An Analysis’ Film Comment 10, no. 1 (January/February 1974): 46–51; Laurent Jullier. Hollywood et la difficulté d’aimer. Paris: Editions Stock, 2004; Catherine L. Preston. ‘Hanging on a Star: The Resurrection of the Romance Film in the 1990s’ in Film Genre 2000: New Critical Essays , edited by Wheeler Winston Dixon, 227–243. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. 8 . Stevi Jackson. ‘Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting our Priorities Straight’ inThinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality , edited by Chrys Ingraham, 15. New York: Routledge, 2005. 108 Notes 109 9 . Chrys Ingraham. ‘Introduction: Thinking Straight’ in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality , edited by Chrys Ingraham, 2. New York: Routledge, 2005. 10 . Donald Sassoon. The Culture of the Europeans: From 1800 to the Present. London: Harper Press, 2006: 97. 11 . Anthony Giddens. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992: 43. 12 . Francesca M. Cancian ‘The Feminization of Love’ Signs 11, no. 4 (Summer 1986): 694. 13 . Jeanine Basinger. A Woman’s View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women 1930–1960. London: Chatto and Windus, 1993: 18. 14 . Mark D. Rubinfeld. Bound to Bond: Gender, Genre and the Hollywood Romantic Comedy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2001: xiv. 15 . Daniel Lopez. Films by Genre: 775 Categories, Styles, Trends and Moments Defined, with a Filmography for Each. Jefferson, N. C.: McFarland and Company, 1993: 259. 16 . The view that love is related to women is similar to sociologists who observe the labelling of love as a feminine domain. See Chapter 1. 17 . MacKinnon. ‘Male Spectatorship and the Hollywood Love Story’. See also Steve Cohan and Ina Rae Hark (eds). Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema. London: Routledge, 1993. 18 . David Thomson. America in the Dark: Hollywood and the Gift of Unreality. London: Hutchison, 1978: 205. 19 . Giddens. The Transformation of Intimacy . 59–60. Although, he notes for men ‘romantic love stands in tension with the imperatives of seduction’ and ‘men by and large have excluded themselves’ from romantic love and intimacy. 20 . Thomson. America in the Dark . 205. 21 . Giddens. The Transformation of Intimacy . 2. 22 . Stuart Brock. ‘Fictions, Feelings and Emotions’ Philosophical Studies 132, no. 2 (2007): 230–231. 23 . Molly Haskell. ‘The Woman’s Film’ in Feminist Film Theory: A Reader , edited by Sue Thornham, 22. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. 24 . Toby Miller and others. Global Hollywood. London: BFI, 2001: 174. 25 . Steve Neale. ‘Questions of Genre’ Screen 31, no. 1 (1990): 56; Ralph Cohen. ‘History and Genre’ Neohelicon 13, no. 2 (September 1986): 47. 26 . Alan Soble. The Philosophy of Sex and Love 2nd edn. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2008: 131. 27 . C. S. Lewis. The Four Loves. London: Bles, 1960. Many sociologists have focused more on one or two of these Greek concepts and altered their meanings over time. This is particularly true of those invested in studies related to more intimate love, who focus on the eros and agape types. Soble looks more historically at the terms eros , agape and philia , and places emphasis on the importance of the distinction between these concepts. See Soble. ‘An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love’ xxii–xxiii. Anders Nygren, who looks solely at two of these concepts, sums up that eros is 110 Notes associated with egocentric love and self-assertion, while agape is described as being an unselfish love, with self-sacrifice, which is very much in keeping with the eros and agape put forward by Lewis. See Anders Nygren. ‘Agape and Eros ’ in Eros, Agape and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , edited by Alan Soble, 93. New York: Paragon House, 1989. In his work, Vincent Brümmer has also accounted for the importance scholarship places on eros and agape in particular and highlights Nygren and Friedrich Nietsche as eminent scholars in this field (Nygren preferred the ideal of agape , whilst Nietsche criticised it as a substitute for eros ). See Vincent Brümmer. The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 110. 28 . See Plato. Symposium . ed. introduction, translation. and commentary by C. J. Rowe. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1998; Thomas L. Cooksey. Plato’s Symposium. London: Continuum, 2010; Soble. The Philosophy of Sex and Love . 20. See also A. W. Price. Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989: 15. Price synthesises that while each person provides different accounts of love, Socrates ulti- mately subscribes to the principles he learned from a seer, Diotima, which place divine love above all else. This argument, that one should find a spiritual connection with one’s lover, continues in the following centuries. The Symposium as a whole emphasises the abstract nature of love. 29 . See Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics . Introduction and translation by David Ross, revised by J. L. Ackrill and J. O. Urmson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998; Soble. The Philosophy of Sex and Love . 22. 30 . Alan Soble. ‘An Introduction to the Philosophy of Love’ in Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love , edited by Alan Soble, xxii–xxiii. New York: Paragon House, 1989. 31 . C. S. Lewis. The Four Loves. London: Bles, 1960. 32 . Robert J. Sternberg. ‘A Triangular Theory of Love’ Psychological Review 93, no. 2 (1986): 119–135. 33 . Sternberg. A Triangular Theory of Love . 119–120, 122,124. 34 . Sternberg. A Triangular Theory of Love . 119–120, 160. 35 . Sternberg. A Triangular Theory of Love . 36 . See for example, Michelle Acker and Mark H. Davis. ‘Intimacy, Passion and Commitment in Adult Romantic Relationships: A Test of the Triangular Theory of Love’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9, no. 1 (February 1992): 21–50. 37 . See, for example, Susan Sprecher and Pamela C. Regan. ‘Passionate and Companionate Love in Courting and Young Married Couples’ Sociological Inquiry 68, no. 2 (May 1998): 163–185; Elaine Hatfield and Susan Sprecher. ‘Measuring Passionate Love in Relationships’ Journal of Adolescence 9 (1986): 383–410; Elaine Hatfield. ‘Passionate Love and Companionate Love’ in The Psychology of Love , edited by Robert J. Sternberg and Michael L. Barnes, 191–217. New Haven, C. T.: Yale University Press, 1988; Elaine Hatfield and Richard L. Rapson. ‘Gender Differences in Love and Intimacy: The Fantasy vs. the Reality’ in Social Work and Notes 111 Love , edited by H. Gochros and W. Ricketts. New York: Hayworth Press: 1985; Elaine Hatfield and Richard L Rapson. ‘Love and the Attachment Process’ in Handbook of Emotions , edited by Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland-Jones, 654–662. New York: Guillford Press, 1993. 38 . Hatfield and Rapson. ‘Love and the Attachment Process’ 654. 39 . Sternberg. ‘Triangular Theory of Love’ 124. Subsequent examina- tions support this general observation. See, for example, Hatfield and Rapson. ‘Love and the Attachment Process’ 654; Hatfield and Sprecher. ‘Measuring Passionate Love in Intimate Relationships’ 396. 40 . Stephanie Coontz. ‘The World Historical Transformation of Marriage’ in Journal of Marriage and Family 6 (November 2004): 974–979; Stephanie Coontz. ‘The New Fragility of Marriage: For Better or for Worse’ Chronicle of Higher Education 51, no. 35 (2005). Accessed 24 March 2009. web. ebscohost.com/ehostdelivery?vid=9&hid=106&sid=db2f7; Stephanie Coontz. ‘The Origins of Modern Divorce’ Family Process 46, no. 1 (2006): 7–16; Giddens. The Transformation of Intimacy ; Helen E. Fisher. Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery and Divorce. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1992. 41 . See, for example: Featherstone. ‘Love and Eroticism’ 5; Giddens. The Transformation of Intimacy . 149. 42 . See, for example, Eileen Fischer and Steven J. Arnold. ‘More than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Gift Shopping’ Journal of Consumer Research 17, no. 3 (December 1990): 333–345; David Cheal.