当前位置: X-MOL 学术New Review of Film and Television Studies › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Evidence to the contrary: matrimony & legal interventionism in silent divorce comedies
New Review of Film and Television Studies ( IF 0.3 ) Pub Date : 2020-01-02 , DOI: 10.1080/17400309.2019.1664050
Leslie H. Abramson 1
Affiliation  

ABSTRACT Captivated by the vagaries of romance, American silent cinema was smitten from the outset with the narrative possibilities of not only attraction but the gamut of ensuing legal entanglements. Divorce and near-divorce comedies appeared in cinema as early as the turn of the century, contrary to their prevailing historicization. Moreover, focusing on the catalysts, processes, emotional turbulence, and romantic fantasies of divorce even among loving spouses, key silent comedies incriminate the law as a central agent in instigating and facilitating the couple’s disunion. This essay examines how Why Mrs. Jones Got a Divorce (1900), Getting Evidence (1906), and Max Wants a Divorce (1917) indict the modern legal system’s seductively broadened possibilities for divorce via modern methodologies and technologies for capturing attraction and licentiousness. These silent comedies pass judgment on the overriding appeal of fingerprints, the detective camera, and the private investigator, as well as other forms of legal documentation. The essay considers early divorce films’ association with silent cinema’s own weddedness to institutional codes and cinema’s commentary on its formal capacity to document the inconstancies of romance. Ultimately, insofar as intoxication with documentation rather than the spouse foregrounds the detriments of establishing actionable legal evidence, these divorce comedies implicate the law’s own capacity for unfaithfulness to a more perfect union.

中文翻译:

相反的证据:无声离婚喜剧中的婚姻和法律干预

摘要痴迷于浪漫的故事,美国无声电影从一开始就迷上了叙事,不仅具有吸引力,而且引起了法律纠缠。离婚喜剧和近离婚喜剧早在世纪之交就出现在电影院中,这与当时流行的历史化现象相反。此外,重点关注的无声喜剧着眼于催化剂,过程,情感动荡和离婚的浪漫幻想,甚至是在爱人中,他们都将无声喜剧定为法律,以此来煽动和促进夫妻的分居。本文探讨了琼斯夫人为何离婚(1900),获得证据(1906),麦克斯·旺斯(Max Wants)离婚(Max Wants离婚)(1917年)指出,现代法律制度通过现代方法和技术来吸引吸引力和放纵,诱人地扩大了离婚可能性。这些无声的喜剧通过对指纹,侦探相机和私人侦探以及其他形式的法律文件的压倒性判断。本文考虑了离婚早期电影与无声电影院本身对机构守则的喜好以及电影院对记录浪漫史的正式能力的评论有关。最终,这些离婚喜剧只不过是沉醉于文件而不是配偶,而不是损害建立可行的法律证据的危害,这暗示了法律自身的不忠实能力,可以使婚姻更加完美。这些无声的喜剧通过对指纹,侦探相机和私人侦探以及其他形式的法律文件的压倒性判断。本文考虑了离婚早期电影与无声电影院本身对机构守则的喜好以及电影院对记录浪漫史的正式能力的评论有关。最终,这些离婚喜剧只不过是沉醉于文件而不是配偶,而不是损害建立可行的法律证据的危害,这暗示了法律自身的不忠实能力,可以使婚姻更加完美。这些无声的喜剧通过对指纹,侦探相机和私人侦探以及其他形式的法律文件的压倒性判断。本文考虑了离婚早期电影与无声电影院本身对机构守则的喜好以及电影院对记录浪漫史的正式能力的评论有关。最终,这些离婚喜剧只不过是沉醉于文件而不是配偶,而不是损害建立可行的法律证据的危害,这暗示了法律自身的不忠实能力,可以使婚姻更加完美。本文考虑了离婚早期电影与无声电影院本身对机构守则的喜好以及电影院对记录浪漫史的正式能力的评论有关。最终,这些离婚喜剧只不过是沉醉于文件而不是配偶,而不是损害建立可行的法律证据的危害,这暗示了法律自身的不忠实能力,可以使婚姻更加完美。本文考虑了离婚早期电影与无声电影院本身对机构守则的喜好以及电影院对记录浪漫史的正式能力的评论有关。最终,这些离婚喜剧只不过是沉醉于文件而不是配偶,而不是损害建立可行的法律证据的危害,这暗示了法律自身的不忠实能力,可以使婚姻更加完美。
更新日期:2020-01-02
down
wechat
bug