Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
In Light Entertainment, you underlined "the fact of human energy in the vitality of the dance number, the pow of the singing, the snap of the humour, the sparkle of the sexuality," describing the force of entertainment as "a real life-assertive quality. "7 Mobilizing Susanne K. Langer's vocabulary of forms and feelings, you stress the importance of studying nonrepresentational signs––"colour, texture, movement, rhythm, melody, camerawork"––beyond narrative and the representational frame.8 While introducing a phenomenological perspective in the high moment of semiotics and cinepsychoanalysis, you were careful to reject Langer's implication, as you put it, "that the emotion itself is not coded, is simply a 'human feeling.'" Instead, you were "inclined to see almost as much coding in the emotions as in the signs for them. Most notably, your writing echoes Walter Benjamin's discussion of the shock (Chockerlebnis) as the experience of modernity invoked by the machine, the conveyer belt, the crowd, by film reception, and by Baudelaire's poetry.11 In these early writings, I detect a theory of film experience as social, aesthetic, and experiential––a theory that draws on the formative moment of the Birmingham Centre for Cultural Studies and the legacy of Raymond Williams, one that insists on studying entertainment as entertainment, an aesthetic and a form of experience as well as a realm of fandom and specialized viewing cultures.