Heidegger in the Literary World: Variations on Poetic Thinking ed. by Florian Grosser and Nassima Sahraoui (review)

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 AREA STUDIES
Elias Schwieler
{"title":"Heidegger in the Literary World: Variations on Poetic Thinking ed. by Florian Grosser and Nassima Sahraoui (review)","authors":"Elias Schwieler","doi":"10.1353/gsr.2023.0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"the film is in critical dialogue with Walter Benjamin’s views on childhood and youth; recent developments in cinema and the rise of child stars in Hollywood; and the current political situation between Nazi Germany and France. It is less clear how the text, based on a “Rashomon effect” of subjective perception, should be read not only as a plea for political realism and enlightenment but also as a critique of the Enlightenment famously elaborated in his “Ornament der Masse” (1927), as Rühse argues (210–212). Chapter six starts with the observation that Kracauer intended in his “Marseiller Entwurf,” his most developed attempt to write a book on film during his last year in France (1940/1941), to include a final chapter on one of Eisenstein’s unfinished film projects in Mexico, the short film Death Day (1934), independently edited by Sol Lesser. While Kracauer’s view of Eisenstein turned more critical in his Theory of Film towards the end of his life, Rühse pursues the striking claim that Kracauer’s theory of film originally hinged on his—misguided—understanding of Eisenstein’s political film work in Mexico and his view of the relationship between film and death, of which only a brief and enigmatic passage survives as a draft for an introduction to his “Marseiller Entwurf” (237). The book closes with a concise resume (chapter seven) that will prove useful for a hurried reader of Rühse’s work, as it contains several insights for scholars interested in Kracauer, film history, and cultural histories of Weimar Germany. In addition, Rühse’s book includes towards the ends of the chapters several passages that “update” Kracauer’s early work by connecting it further to literature, art, architecture, and film, including works by the French author and former cashier Anna Sam and the American artist Edward Hopper, contemporary dine-in cinema in New York, the Swiss short film Sounds of Nature (2013) by Simon Weber, as well as recent Academy award winners such as The Great Beauty by Paolo Sorrentino (2013) and Coco by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina (2017). These digressions, while largely convincing in their respective analyses, leave the reader somewhat puzzled, as their relevance to the book largely rests on the fact that motifs of early cinema persist—as mirrors—under considerably different circumstances in the contemporary popular culture of the Western world. Frederic Ponten, University of Regensburg","PeriodicalId":43954,"journal":{"name":"German Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2023.0025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

the film is in critical dialogue with Walter Benjamin’s views on childhood and youth; recent developments in cinema and the rise of child stars in Hollywood; and the current political situation between Nazi Germany and France. It is less clear how the text, based on a “Rashomon effect” of subjective perception, should be read not only as a plea for political realism and enlightenment but also as a critique of the Enlightenment famously elaborated in his “Ornament der Masse” (1927), as Rühse argues (210–212). Chapter six starts with the observation that Kracauer intended in his “Marseiller Entwurf,” his most developed attempt to write a book on film during his last year in France (1940/1941), to include a final chapter on one of Eisenstein’s unfinished film projects in Mexico, the short film Death Day (1934), independently edited by Sol Lesser. While Kracauer’s view of Eisenstein turned more critical in his Theory of Film towards the end of his life, Rühse pursues the striking claim that Kracauer’s theory of film originally hinged on his—misguided—understanding of Eisenstein’s political film work in Mexico and his view of the relationship between film and death, of which only a brief and enigmatic passage survives as a draft for an introduction to his “Marseiller Entwurf” (237). The book closes with a concise resume (chapter seven) that will prove useful for a hurried reader of Rühse’s work, as it contains several insights for scholars interested in Kracauer, film history, and cultural histories of Weimar Germany. In addition, Rühse’s book includes towards the ends of the chapters several passages that “update” Kracauer’s early work by connecting it further to literature, art, architecture, and film, including works by the French author and former cashier Anna Sam and the American artist Edward Hopper, contemporary dine-in cinema in New York, the Swiss short film Sounds of Nature (2013) by Simon Weber, as well as recent Academy award winners such as The Great Beauty by Paolo Sorrentino (2013) and Coco by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina (2017). These digressions, while largely convincing in their respective analyses, leave the reader somewhat puzzled, as their relevance to the book largely rests on the fact that motifs of early cinema persist—as mirrors—under considerably different circumstances in the contemporary popular culture of the Western world. Frederic Ponten, University of Regensburg
《文学世界中的海德格尔:诗歌思维的变体》,弗洛里安·格罗瑟、纳西玛·萨拉维主编(书评)
这部电影与沃尔特·本雅明关于童年和青年的观点进行了批判性的对话;电影的最新发展和好莱坞童星的崛起;以及当前纳粹德国和法国之间的政治局势。不太清楚的是,基于主观感知的“罗生门效应”,文本不仅应该被解读为对政治现实主义和启蒙运动的恳求,而且应该被解读成对启蒙运动的批判,正如Rühse所说(210-212),在他的《大众的装饰》(1927)中著名地阐述了这一点。第六章从克拉考在他的《马赛恩特武夫》(Marseille Entwurf)中的观察开始,这是他在法国的最后一年(1940/1941)写一本关于电影的书的最新尝试,其中包括爱森斯坦在墨西哥未完成的电影项目之一的最后一章,由索尔·莱瑟独立编辑的短片《死亡日》(1934)。虽然克拉考对爱森斯坦的看法在他生命的尽头在他的电影理论中变得更加批判性,但Rühse提出了一个惊人的主张,即克拉考的电影理论最初取决于他对爱森斯斯坦在墨西哥的政治电影工作的被误导的理解,以及他对电影与死亡之间关系的看法,其中只有一段简短而神秘的段落作为介绍他的《马赛恩特武夫》(237)的草稿留存下来。这本书以一份简洁的简历(第七章)结尾,这将对匆匆阅读吕塞斯作品的读者有用,因为它包含了对克拉考、电影史和魏玛德国文化史感兴趣的学者的一些见解。此外,Rühse的书在章节末包括了几段“更新”克拉考早期作品的段落,将其进一步与文学、艺术、建筑和电影联系起来,其中包括法国作家、前收银员Anna Sam和美国艺术家Edward Hopper的作品,纽约的当代影院用餐,西蒙·韦伯(Simon Weber)的瑞士短片《自然之声》(Sounds of Nature)(2013),以及最近的奥斯卡奖得主,如保罗·索伦蒂诺(Paolo Sorrentino)的《大美人》(2013)和李·昂克里奇(Lee Unkrich)和阿德里安·莫利纳(Adrian Molina)的《可可》(2017)。这些离题虽然在各自的分析中基本上令人信服,但却让读者感到有些困惑,因为它们与本书的相关性很大程度上取决于这样一个事实,即早期电影的主题在西方世界当代流行文化中相当不同的情况下仍然存在——就像镜子一样。弗雷德里克·庞滕,雷根斯堡大学
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信