Ostrannenie: On 'strangeness' and the Moving Image: The History, Reception, and Relevance of a Concept

281 Pages·2010·3.652 MB·English

by  Annie van den Oever

THE KEY DEBATES 1
OSTRANENIE (“making strange”) has T
Mutations and Appropriations in H
become one of the central concepts E
European Film Studies K
of modern artistic practice. Coined by E
Y
Viktor Shklovsky, ostranenie has come D
The Key Debates is a new fi lm E
to resonate deeply in Film Studies, B
series from Amsterdam A
where it entered into dialogue with the T
University Press. The series’ E
Brechtian technique of “Verfremdung,” S
ambition is to uncover the
the Freudian concept of the uncanny processes of appropriation and
and Derrida’s “différance.” Reread within diffusion of key concepts that O
the context of early cinema’s estranging have shaped Film Studies. The
S
impact on audiences, Shklovsky’s “Art series editors are: Ian Christie,
T
as Technique” proves to be highly Dominique Chateau, and Annie
R
van den Oever.
relevant for Film, Media, and Art
A
Studies today. Striking, provocative and
N
incisive, the essays by distinguished
Contributions by: E M T
international fi lm scholars in this Ian Christie, N u u H
r ta
volume explore the range and diversity Yuri Tsivian, E op tio E
of a concept that continues to provoke Dominique Chateau, N e ns K
a a E
theoretical inquiry. FLraaunrken Kte Jsusllleier,r , IE OSTRANNENIE n F nd A Y
Miklós Kiss, ilm pp D
r E
‘This remarkable collection of essays and interviews Emile Poppe, S opr B
explores the centrality of the concept of ostranenie László Tarnay, V tu iat A
(m“medaikai nagn ds tmraondgeer”n)i ttyo fcrionmem aa r,a tnhgee a ovfa pnet-rgspaerdceti,v es: BAanrdernáds vBaánli nHte Kuosvdáecns, , an d dies ions in TES
historical, theoretical, cognitive and psychoanalytic. Annie van den Oever, e
n
Modernist ostranenie was about the transformation and Laura Mulvey.
O Annie van den Oever (ed.) 1
of representation and perception at a time when fi lm e
v
was new: the outstanding essays collected here open e
r
up this historical moment and reveal the continuing
(
signifi cance of the concept, for culture and for human e
d
cognition.’ .
)
Laura Marcus – Goldsmiths’ Professor of English
Literature, University of Oxford
www.aup.nl
A         U          P     A         U          P    
Ostrannenie
TheKeyDebates
MutationsandAppropriations
inEuropeanFilmStudies
SeriesEditors
IanChristie,DominiqueChateau,AnnievandenOever
Ostrannenie
“ ”
On Strangeness and the Moving Image
The History, Reception, and Relevance
of a Concept
Edited by Annie van den Oever
AmsterdamUniversityPress
The publication of this book is made possible by grants from The Netherlands
OrganisationforScientificResearch(NWO),andtheMuleriusFoundation.
Coverillustration:DzigaVertov’sTheManwithaMoviecamera,1929
Coverdesign:Neon,designandcommunications|SabineMannel
Lay-out:JAPES,Amsterdam
isbn 9789089640796
e-isbn 9789048507955
nur 670
©A.M.A.vandenOever/AmsterdamUniversityPress,Amsterdam2010
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above,
no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both
thecopyrightownerandtheauthorofthebook.
Every effort had been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustra-
tionsreproducedinthisbook.Nonetheless,whosoeverbelieves tohaverightsto
thismaterialisadvisedtocontactthepublisher.
Contents
Editorial 7
Acknowledgments 9
Introduction:Ostran(n)enieasan“Attractive”Concept 11
AnnievandenOever
PART I
Theory Formation
Ostranenie, theAvant-Gardeand TheCinema ofAttractions
TheGestureofRevolutionorMisquotingasDevice 21
YuriTsivian
Ostranenie,“TheMontageofAttractions”andEarlyCinema’s“Properly
IrreducibleAlienQuality” 33
AnnievandenOever
Part II
Mutations and Appropriations
Alienation Theories and Terminologies
Ostranenie,Innovation,andMediaHistory 61
FrankKessler
Knight’sMoves:BrechtandRussianFormalisminBritaininthe1970s 81
IanChristie
OstranenieinFrenchFilmStudies:TranslationProblemsandConflicting
Interests 99
DominiqueChateau
ChristianMetzandtheRussianFormalists:A“Rendez-VousManqué”? 111
EmilePoppe
5
Part III
Cognitive andEvolutionary-Cognitive Approaches to Ostranenie
Perception, Cognitive Gaps and Cognitive Schemes
ShouldISeeWhatIBelieve?
AudiovisualOstranenieandEvolutionary-CognitiveFilmTheory 119
LaurentJullier
OnPerception,Ostranenie,andSpecificity 141
LászlóTarnay
EstrangementandtheRepresentationofLifeinArt 157
BarendvanHeusden
ThePerceptionofRealityasDeformedRealism 165
MiklósKiss
Part IV
Discussions
OnOstranenie,Différance,and theUncanny
ConversationwithAndrásBálintKovács 175
ByLaurentJullier
ConversationwithLauraMulvey 185
ByAnnievandenOever
Notes 205
GeneralBibliography 241
NotesonContributors 255
IndexofNames 259
IndexofFilmTitles 267
IndexofSubjects 269
6 contents
Editorial
Thinkingandtheorizingaboutfilmisalmostasoldasthemediumitself.Within
a few years of the earliest film shows in the 1890s, manifestos and reflections
began to appear which sought to analyze the seemingly vast potential of film.
WritersinFrance,RussiaandBritainwereamongthefirsttoenterthisfield,and
their texts have become cornerstones of the literature of cinema. Few nations,
however, failed to produce their own statements and dialogues about the nature
ofcinema,ofteninteractingwithproponentsofModernisminthetraditionalarts
andcrafts.Filmthusfounditselfembeddedinthediscoursesofmodernity,espe-
ciallyinEuropeandSovietRussia.
“Film theory,” as it became known in the 1970s, has always had an historical
dimension, acknowledging its debts to the pioneers of analyzing film texts and
filmexperience,evenwhilepressingtheseintoserviceinthepresent.Butasscho-
larship in the history of film theory develops, there is an urgent need to revisit
manylong-standingassumptionsandclarifylinesoftransmissionandinterpreta-
tion. The Key Debates is a new series of books from Amsterdam University Press
whichfocusesonthecentralissuesthatcontinuetoanimatethinkingaboutfilm
and audiovisual media as the “century of celluloid” gives way to a field of inter-
relateddigitalmedia.
Initiated by Annie van den Oever (the Netherlands), the direction of the series
hasbeenelaboratedbyaninternationalgroupoffilmscholars,includingDomin-
ique Chateau (France), Ian Christie (UK), Laurent Creton (France), Laura Mulvey
(UK), Roger Odin (France), Eric de Kuyper (Belgium), and Emile Poppe (Bel-
gium).Theintentionistodrawonthewidestpossiblerangeofexpertise topro-
vide authoritative accounts of how debates around film originated, and to trace
howconceptsthatarecommonlyusedtodayhavebeenmodifiedintheprocessof
appropriation.Thebookseriesmaycontributetoboththeinventionaswellasthe
abductionofconcepts.
London/Paris/Amsterdam
IanChristie,DominiqueChateau,AnnievandenOever
7

Acknowledgments
The process of making thisbookwas atruly stimulating and pleasurable experi-
ence, since many of the authors contributing to it were already involved in the
project Mutations and Appropriations in European Film Studies and helped to prepare
thenewbookseriesTheKeyDebates.Manyoftheauthorsaswellasthemembers
oftheEditorialBoardwereinvolvedinthemakingofthisbookfromit’sinfancy,
discussing why we felt we had to revisit Russian Formalism and how we could
best rethink its key concept, ostranenie. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to
both the contributors to this book as well as to the members of the Editorial
Boardfortheirenthusiasticandunrelentingsupportandextremelygenerouscon-
tributionstothisbookandtotheprojectineveryphaseofitsbecoming,fromthe
first meetings and workshops via a long series of discussions and emails to cor-
rectionsuggestionsintheverylasthoursbeforethisfirstbookoftheserieswent
into print. I cordially thank Dominique Chateau, Ian Christie, Eric de Kuyper,
Laura Mulvey, Roger Odin, Emile Poppe, Laurent Creton, Barend van Heusden,
Laurent Jullier, Frank Kessler,Miklós Kiss, András BálintKovács,LászlóTarnay,
andYuriTsivian.Oneoftherealchallengesofthisprojectwastobringaninter-
national group of scholars together from a wide variety of countries, speaking
different languages, and coming from different academic traditions. The real
pleasure wasto see all the different inputs cometogether, challenge and contra-
dicteachother,competeandcohere.Iamawarethisprocesstookupabitmore
time than we originally planned and I am sincerely thankful to Amsterdam Uni-
versityPressfortheirpatienceandutterlysupportiveenthusiasmineveryphaseof
this project. I sincerely thank Anniek Meinders, Jeroen Sondervan, Magdalena
Hernas,MartinVoigt,ChantalNicolaes,MariekeSmeenk,andtheirteams.More-
over, a team of assistants and students have been very helpful and supportive in
different phases of the project, including the editorial phase. For their help and
support I would like to thank Ruben Allersma, Lotte Kruijt, Emily Ekong, Rein
MulderandShiraWolff.IwouldalsoliketothankTheNetherlandsOrganisation
for Scientific Research (NWO), the Mulerius Foundation and the Groningen Re-
search School for the Study of the Humanities for their generous financial sup-
port,withoutwhichthisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossible.Iwishtoparticu-
larly thank Martin Gosman and Herman Hoen, who as Heads of the Groningen
Research School helped to start this project. Furthermore, I would like to thank
the staff of Arts, Culture and Media from the University of Groningen for their
9