希腊怪浪:Dimitris Papanikolaou 著的《生物政治电影》(评论)

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Lydia Papadimitriou
{"title":"希腊怪浪:Dimitris Papanikolaou 著的《生物政治电影》(评论)","authors":"Lydia Papadimitriou","doi":"10.1353/mgs.2024.a925804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics</em> by Dimitris Papanikolaou <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Lydia Papadimitriou (bio) </li> </ul> Dimitris Papanikolaou, <em>Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics</em>. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2021. Pp. xvi + 268. 27 illustrations., Hardback and E-book £90.00, Paperback £19.99. <p>Toward the end of his introduction, Dimitris Papanikolaou writes that \"this is a very personal, very idiosyncratic, very weird history of the Weird Wave\" (24). The book is indeed personal: the author explicitly places (his own) affect center stage, writes about how the films \"touch\" him, and positions \"biopolitical realism\"—the key concept that structures the book—as a \"survival tactic\" (23). The book is idiosyncratic for the very same reasons, as well as for the ways in which its author inflects, adjusts, and expands otherwise familiar concepts such as allegory in new directions—most crucially, here, by introducing the notion of <em>metonymic</em> allegory. And it is weird insofar as it combines a certain degree of playfulness (evident at a glance in some of its subheadings) with intense theoretical engagement while also implicitly acknowledging—just as the Greek Weird Wave filmmakers have done through their films—the \"unease\" of articulating fixed and authoritative interpretations, opting instead to \"reclaim … weirdness … as an analytical position\" (11).</p> <p>None of the above qualities makes the book problematic; if anything, they signal its methodological and heuristic strengths. Far from being a formalist genre study, <em>Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics</em> seeks to find connections among form, content, context, and affect within the otherwise rather disparate group of Greek films that emerged in the late 2000s and thrived in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This was a period overdetermined by the Greek financial crisis, which affected not only the conditions of the films' production (if not initially, then certainly by the time the term \"Greek Weird Wave\" was coined by British journalist Steve Rose in 2011) but also the interpretative frames projected onto them—frames that encouraged traditional (i.e., metaphor-based) allegorical readings of the nation in crisis.</p> <p>Triggered by his own emotive and bodily response to the films, Papanikolaou offers an analysis that goes beyond such approaches. He argues that the films' potency lies in their ability to convey \"weirdness\" as a \"structure of feeling\" (12) for the conditions of life in the early twenty-first century as experienced—not only, but with particular intensity—in Greece. Borrowing Foucault's notion of biopolitics, understood as the \"social and political practices that focus on 'disciplining the living being'\" and ultimately subjugating \"'corporeal life into systems of efficient and economic controls'\" (15), Papanikolaou coins the term <em>biopolitical realism</em>. Of the two words that constitute this neologism—strictly speaking, the phrase is not new, but its previous use was very different <strong>[End Page 130]</strong> (see pp. 130–132)—it is arguably \"realism\" that is the most contentious. The biopolitical dimension of the films under discussion is far more evident, and in some instances, such as in Yorgos Lanthimos's <em>Dogtooth</em> (2009), it is very much on the surface. Realism, however, is not—even for those familiar with the intricacies of the inexhaustible topic of realism in cinema.</p> <p>Aware of the apparent incongruity (perhaps even weirdness) of associating \"realism\" with these films, Papanikolaou dedicates his fourth chapter to explaining his version of it. He points out that the Weird Wave films knowingly undermine familiar understandings of cinematic realism while seeking \"to engage with 'the world we live in' on different terms\" (113). The realism we should be looking for here, therefore, is a <em>conceptual</em> rather than a cinematic one. Given that it depends not on external characteristics but rather on a redefinition of possible ways to understand and represent reality, this conceptualization of realism is not straightforward. Fundamental to it is the changing nature of our reality and its increasing—if not already total—subjugation to biopolitical structures of power. Papanikolaou here cites Mark Fisher's notion of \"capitalist realism\"—the idea that neoliberal capitalism is so pervasive that everything is subsumed into it to the extent of determining perceptions of reality—as a precursor to his own (126–131). \"Biopolitical realism,\" Papanikolaou writes, \"is exactly that type of capitalist realism...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":43810,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MODERN GREEK STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics by Dimitris Papanikolaou (review)\",\"authors\":\"Lydia Papadimitriou\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/mgs.2024.a925804\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics</em> by Dimitris Papanikolaou <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Lydia Papadimitriou (bio) </li> </ul> Dimitris Papanikolaou, <em>Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics</em>. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2021. Pp. xvi + 268. 27 illustrations., Hardback and E-book £90.00, Paperback £19.99. <p>Toward the end of his introduction, Dimitris Papanikolaou writes that \\\"this is a very personal, very idiosyncratic, very weird history of the Weird Wave\\\" (24). The book is indeed personal: the author explicitly places (his own) affect center stage, writes about how the films \\\"touch\\\" him, and positions \\\"biopolitical realism\\\"—the key concept that structures the book—as a \\\"survival tactic\\\" (23). The book is idiosyncratic for the very same reasons, as well as for the ways in which its author inflects, adjusts, and expands otherwise familiar concepts such as allegory in new directions—most crucially, here, by introducing the notion of <em>metonymic</em> allegory. And it is weird insofar as it combines a certain degree of playfulness (evident at a glance in some of its subheadings) with intense theoretical engagement while also implicitly acknowledging—just as the Greek Weird Wave filmmakers have done through their films—the \\\"unease\\\" of articulating fixed and authoritative interpretations, opting instead to \\\"reclaim … weirdness … as an analytical position\\\" (11).</p> <p>None of the above qualities makes the book problematic; if anything, they signal its methodological and heuristic strengths. Far from being a formalist genre study, <em>Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics</em> seeks to find connections among form, content, context, and affect within the otherwise rather disparate group of Greek films that emerged in the late 2000s and thrived in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This was a period overdetermined by the Greek financial crisis, which affected not only the conditions of the films' production (if not initially, then certainly by the time the term \\\"Greek Weird Wave\\\" was coined by British journalist Steve Rose in 2011) but also the interpretative frames projected onto them—frames that encouraged traditional (i.e., metaphor-based) allegorical readings of the nation in crisis.</p> <p>Triggered by his own emotive and bodily response to the films, Papanikolaou offers an analysis that goes beyond such approaches. He argues that the films' potency lies in their ability to convey \\\"weirdness\\\" as a \\\"structure of feeling\\\" (12) for the conditions of life in the early twenty-first century as experienced—not only, but with particular intensity—in Greece. Borrowing Foucault's notion of biopolitics, understood as the \\\"social and political practices that focus on 'disciplining the living being'\\\" and ultimately subjugating \\\"'corporeal life into systems of efficient and economic controls'\\\" (15), Papanikolaou coins the term <em>biopolitical realism</em>. Of the two words that constitute this neologism—strictly speaking, the phrase is not new, but its previous use was very different <strong>[End Page 130]</strong> (see pp. 130–132)—it is arguably \\\"realism\\\" that is the most contentious. The biopolitical dimension of the films under discussion is far more evident, and in some instances, such as in Yorgos Lanthimos's <em>Dogtooth</em> (2009), it is very much on the surface. Realism, however, is not—even for those familiar with the intricacies of the inexhaustible topic of realism in cinema.</p> <p>Aware of the apparent incongruity (perhaps even weirdness) of associating \\\"realism\\\" with these films, Papanikolaou dedicates his fourth chapter to explaining his version of it. He points out that the Weird Wave films knowingly undermine familiar understandings of cinematic realism while seeking \\\"to engage with 'the world we live in' on different terms\\\" (113). The realism we should be looking for here, therefore, is a <em>conceptual</em> rather than a cinematic one. Given that it depends not on external characteristics but rather on a redefinition of possible ways to understand and represent reality, this conceptualization of realism is not straightforward. Fundamental to it is the changing nature of our reality and its increasing—if not already total—subjugation to biopolitical structures of power. Papanikolaou here cites Mark Fisher's notion of \\\"capitalist realism\\\"—the idea that neoliberal capitalism is so pervasive that everything is subsumed into it to the extent of determining perceptions of reality—as a precursor to his own (126–131). \\\"Biopolitical realism,\\\" Papanikolaou writes, \\\"is exactly that type of capitalist realism...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF MODERN GREEK STUDIES\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF MODERN GREEK STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2024.a925804\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF MODERN GREEK STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2024.a925804","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者: 希腊怪浪:Lydia Papadimitriou(简历) Dimitris Papanikolaou,《希腊怪浪:生物政治的电影》:生物政治学电影》。爱丁堡:爱丁堡大学出版社。2021.Pp.精装本和电子书 90.00 英镑,平装本 19.99 英镑。Dimitris Papanikolaou 在序言末尾写道:"这是一部非常个人化、非常特立独行、非常怪异的怪浪历史"(24)。这本书的确是个人化的:作者明确地将(他自己的)影响置于中心位置,写下了电影如何 "触动 "了他,并将 "生物政治现实主义"--本书的关键概念--定位为一种 "生存策略"(23)。这本书之所以特立独行,原因也在于此,还在于作者对寓言等人们熟悉的概念进行了新的诠释、调整和扩展--最关键的是,在此引入了隐喻寓言的概念。该书的怪异之处还在于,它将一定程度的游戏性(在一些小标题中一目了然)与强烈的理论参与性相结合,同时也含蓄地承认--正如希腊 "怪异浪潮 "电影制作人通过他们的电影所做的那样--阐述固定和权威解释的 "不安",而是选择 "回收......怪异......作为一种分析立场"(11)。上述特质都不会使本书产生问题;如果说有什么问题的话,那就是本书在方法论和启发式方面的优势。希腊怪浪》绝非形式主义的流派研究:希腊怪异浪潮:生物政治电影》试图在 2000 年代后期出现并在 21 世纪第二个十年蓬勃发展的希腊电影群体中找到形式、内容、背景和影响之间的联系。这一时期的希腊金融危机影响过大,不仅影响了电影的制作条件(如果不是一开始,那么肯定是在英国记者史蒂夫-罗斯(Steve Rose)于 2011 年创造 "希腊怪浪 "一词的时候),还影响了电影的诠释框架--鼓励对危机中的国家进行传统的(即基于隐喻的)寓言式解读的框架。帕潘尼科拉乌对这些影片的情感和身体反应触发了他的灵感,他的分析超越了这些方法。他认为,这些电影的魅力在于它们能够将 "怪异 "作为一种 "情感结构"(12)来传达 21 世纪初希腊人的生活状况,这种生活状况不仅在希腊经历过,而且特别强烈。帕帕尼科拉乌借用福柯的生物政治学概念,将其理解为 "专注于'约束生命'的社会和政治实践",并最终征服"'将肉体生命纳入有效的经济控制体系'"(15),创造了生物政治现实主义一词。在构成这个新词的两个词中--严格地说,这个词并不新鲜,但以前的用法却大不相同 [完 第 130 页](见第 130-132 页)--可以说 "现实主义 "是最有争议的。我们所讨论的这些影片的生物政治维度要明显得多,在某些情况下,例如在约里奥斯-兰斯莫斯的《狗牙》(2009 年)中,生物政治维度非常明显。然而,现实主义却并非如此--即使对于那些熟悉电影中现实主义这一难以穷尽的复杂话题的人来说也是如此。帕潘尼科拉乌意识到将 "现实主义 "与这些电影联系在一起显然是不协调的(甚至可能是怪异的),因此他在第四章中专门解释了他的现实主义版本。他指出,"新浪潮 "电影有意破坏人们对电影现实主义的理解,同时寻求 "以不同的方式参与'我们生活的世界'"(113)。因此,我们应该在这里寻找的现实主义是一种概念上的现实主义,而不是电影上的现实主义。鉴于现实主义并非取决于外部特征,而是取决于对理解和表现现实的可能方式的重新定义,这种现实主义的概念化并非直截了当。其根本原因在于我们现实不断变化的性质,以及它日益--如果不是已经完全--屈从于生物政治权力结构。帕帕尼古拉乌在这里引用了马克-费舍尔(Mark Fisher)的 "资本主义现实主义 "概念--即新自由主义资本主义如此普遍,以至于一切都被归入其中,以至于决定了人们对现实的看法--作为他自己的概念的先驱(126-131)。帕帕尼科拉乌写道:"生物政治现实主义","正是那种资本主义现实主义...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics by Dimitris Papanikolaou (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

  • Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics by Dimitris Papanikolaou
  • Lydia Papadimitriou (bio)
Dimitris Papanikolaou, Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2021. Pp. xvi + 268. 27 illustrations., Hardback and E-book £90.00, Paperback £19.99.

Toward the end of his introduction, Dimitris Papanikolaou writes that "this is a very personal, very idiosyncratic, very weird history of the Weird Wave" (24). The book is indeed personal: the author explicitly places (his own) affect center stage, writes about how the films "touch" him, and positions "biopolitical realism"—the key concept that structures the book—as a "survival tactic" (23). The book is idiosyncratic for the very same reasons, as well as for the ways in which its author inflects, adjusts, and expands otherwise familiar concepts such as allegory in new directions—most crucially, here, by introducing the notion of metonymic allegory. And it is weird insofar as it combines a certain degree of playfulness (evident at a glance in some of its subheadings) with intense theoretical engagement while also implicitly acknowledging—just as the Greek Weird Wave filmmakers have done through their films—the "unease" of articulating fixed and authoritative interpretations, opting instead to "reclaim … weirdness … as an analytical position" (11).

None of the above qualities makes the book problematic; if anything, they signal its methodological and heuristic strengths. Far from being a formalist genre study, Greek Weird Wave: A Cinema of Biopolitics seeks to find connections among form, content, context, and affect within the otherwise rather disparate group of Greek films that emerged in the late 2000s and thrived in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This was a period overdetermined by the Greek financial crisis, which affected not only the conditions of the films' production (if not initially, then certainly by the time the term "Greek Weird Wave" was coined by British journalist Steve Rose in 2011) but also the interpretative frames projected onto them—frames that encouraged traditional (i.e., metaphor-based) allegorical readings of the nation in crisis.

Triggered by his own emotive and bodily response to the films, Papanikolaou offers an analysis that goes beyond such approaches. He argues that the films' potency lies in their ability to convey "weirdness" as a "structure of feeling" (12) for the conditions of life in the early twenty-first century as experienced—not only, but with particular intensity—in Greece. Borrowing Foucault's notion of biopolitics, understood as the "social and political practices that focus on 'disciplining the living being'" and ultimately subjugating "'corporeal life into systems of efficient and economic controls'" (15), Papanikolaou coins the term biopolitical realism. Of the two words that constitute this neologism—strictly speaking, the phrase is not new, but its previous use was very different [End Page 130] (see pp. 130–132)—it is arguably "realism" that is the most contentious. The biopolitical dimension of the films under discussion is far more evident, and in some instances, such as in Yorgos Lanthimos's Dogtooth (2009), it is very much on the surface. Realism, however, is not—even for those familiar with the intricacies of the inexhaustible topic of realism in cinema.

Aware of the apparent incongruity (perhaps even weirdness) of associating "realism" with these films, Papanikolaou dedicates his fourth chapter to explaining his version of it. He points out that the Weird Wave films knowingly undermine familiar understandings of cinematic realism while seeking "to engage with 'the world we live in' on different terms" (113). The realism we should be looking for here, therefore, is a conceptual rather than a cinematic one. Given that it depends not on external characteristics but rather on a redefinition of possible ways to understand and represent reality, this conceptualization of realism is not straightforward. Fundamental to it is the changing nature of our reality and its increasing—if not already total—subjugation to biopolitical structures of power. Papanikolaou here cites Mark Fisher's notion of "capitalist realism"—the idea that neoliberal capitalism is so pervasive that everything is subsumed into it to the extent of determining perceptions of reality—as a precursor to his own (126–131). "Biopolitical realism," Papanikolaou writes, "is exactly that type of capitalist realism...

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF MODERN GREEK STUDIES
JOURNAL OF MODERN GREEK STUDIES HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Praised as "a magnificent scholarly journal" by Choice magazine, the Journal of Modern Greek Studies is the only scholarly periodical to focus exclusively on modern Greece. The Journal publishes critical analyses of Greek social, cultural, and political affairs, covering the period from the late Byzantine Empire to the present. Contributors include internationally recognized scholars in the fields of history, literature, anthropology, political science, Byzantine studies, and modern Greece.
×
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