Palin’s depiction of Hamish Melville, the impossibly ethical activist against which Mabbut compares himself, is handled unexpectedly.
A compassionate, pragmatic anti-sentimentality, or an attempt at one, serves as the through line for his examination of one the most mythologized of all screen actors.
Split Screen Korea exemplifies a kind of necessary scholarly monograph that will never go out of style.
Nicholson astutely connects Eyes Wide Shut back to Interview with the Vampire through their intentionally strained eroticism, which serves to acknowledge the films’ respective true theme of the capitalist power that lingers under the superficial sexual roleplay.
Friendship may read to many, especially those unfamiliar with New York, as one giant inside joke without a punchline.
Rakoff acknowledges that it takes a lot to make people care.
King shrewdly connects Hodges’s torment, the stuff of formula cop movies, to larger American feelings of rootlessness and economic despair.
This is a satisfying survey of the artists who’re still actively turning the graphic novel into a new kind of literature.
Aside from expected essays on film adaptations, there are a number of pieces that roam free from these constraints.
The book is more a corroboration for the initiated than inquest for the infidels.
That multitude, with regard to films, is rather restricted to a specific kind of cinephilia, primarily an overt emphasis on Classical Hollywood.
Herbert’s strongest work comes via his explanation for the physical layout of various stores and how each utilizes the space in order to cater to a specific type of consumer.
That lack of scope—and subject specificity—makes itself apparent in a small detail: McGowan’s failure to refer to Lee’s films as “joints” at any point, a label which all films but a few documentaries have carried.
A book insufficiently framed by either strong historical or theoretical parameters is bound to flounder quickly and Davis’s work is no exception.
His extensive definition of “exile” draws on the likes of theorists Theodor Adorno, Edward Said, and Salman Rushdie to explain how complex self-expression can become when displaced from one’s homeland.
In concerning himself more with facts than historiographic elucidation, Isenberg embraces the biographic over the critical dimensions entailed in his chosen methodological approach.
By shifting the questions to stakes of claims rather than just an affirmation of positive or negative images, Nishime moves toward a progressive politics of the mediated imaging of multiracial Asians.
In order to comprehend Godard’s cinema, Witt claims, it’s first necessary to understand precisely how Godard defines the cinema.
While many academic monographs take a single director, time period, or genre as their field for analysis, Andrews is juggling at least half a dozen at once.
Fisher’s smart questions elicit both useful and humorous responses from Petzold throughout.