{"title":"第四章:“电影作为日常生活奇迹的发现者”:克拉考尔和现实主义电影的前景","authors":"T. Forrest","doi":"10.14361/9783839406816-004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the years following the publication of Siegfried Kracauer’s Theory of 1 Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality in 1960 , the book came under fire by a number of critics, whose reactions to Kracauer’s delineation of the promise of the medium were both patronising and acrimonious. As Miriam Hansen has argued in her introduction to Theory of Film, foremost among those analyses of the book which “assumed an unusually 2 condescending tone” were Pauline Kael’s hostile account of Kracauer’s “German pedantry” and Dudley Andrew’s dismissive references to the “utterly transparent” nature of the concerns addressed in Kra3 cauer’s “huge homogeneous block of realist theory” . Indeed, as revealed by Richard Corliss’s highly critical account of the book, it appears that Kracauer’s “irredeemable sin” lies in the perceived extent to which,","PeriodicalId":216454,"journal":{"name":"The Politics of Imagination","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapter 4: “Film as the Discoverer of the Marvels of Everyday Life”: Kracauer and the Promise of Realist Cinema\",\"authors\":\"T. Forrest\",\"doi\":\"10.14361/9783839406816-004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the years following the publication of Siegfried Kracauer’s Theory of 1 Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality in 1960 , the book came under fire by a number of critics, whose reactions to Kracauer’s delineation of the promise of the medium were both patronising and acrimonious. As Miriam Hansen has argued in her introduction to Theory of Film, foremost among those analyses of the book which “assumed an unusually 2 condescending tone” were Pauline Kael’s hostile account of Kracauer’s “German pedantry” and Dudley Andrew’s dismissive references to the “utterly transparent” nature of the concerns addressed in Kra3 cauer’s “huge homogeneous block of realist theory” . Indeed, as revealed by Richard Corliss’s highly critical account of the book, it appears that Kracauer’s “irredeemable sin” lies in the perceived extent to which,\",\"PeriodicalId\":216454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Politics of Imagination\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Politics of Imagination\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839406816-004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Politics of Imagination","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839406816-004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
1960年,齐格弗里德·克拉考尔(Siegfried Kracauer)的《电影理论:物理现实的救赎》(Theory of 1 Film: the Redemption of Physical Reality)出版后的几年里,这本书受到了许多评论家的抨击,他们对克拉考尔对媒介前景的描述既傲慢又尖刻。正如米里亚姆·汉森在她的《电影理论》导言中所说的那样,在那些“以一种不同寻常的优越感口吻”对这本书进行的分析中,最重要的是宝琳·凯尔对克拉考尔“德国学风”的敌意描述,以及达德利·安德鲁对克拉考尔“巨大的同质现实主义理论”中所涉及的问题“完全透明”的不屑一顾。的确,正如理查德·科利斯(Richard Corliss)对这本书的高度批判所揭示的那样,克拉考尔的“不可挽回的罪过”似乎在于,
Chapter 4: “Film as the Discoverer of the Marvels of Everyday Life”: Kracauer and the Promise of Realist Cinema
In the years following the publication of Siegfried Kracauer’s Theory of 1 Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality in 1960 , the book came under fire by a number of critics, whose reactions to Kracauer’s delineation of the promise of the medium were both patronising and acrimonious. As Miriam Hansen has argued in her introduction to Theory of Film, foremost among those analyses of the book which “assumed an unusually 2 condescending tone” were Pauline Kael’s hostile account of Kracauer’s “German pedantry” and Dudley Andrew’s dismissive references to the “utterly transparent” nature of the concerns addressed in Kra3 cauer’s “huge homogeneous block of realist theory” . Indeed, as revealed by Richard Corliss’s highly critical account of the book, it appears that Kracauer’s “irredeemable sin” lies in the perceived extent to which,