Reviewed by:

• James Joyce and Cinematicity: Before and After Film by Keith Williams
• Jeffrey Longacre (bio)

Despite its title, Keith Williams’s James Joyce and Cinematicity is not just another “Joyce and film” book. Williams exhaustively explores the archives in order to provide the most comprehensive and definitive study to date of how the pre- and proto-cinematic visual culture of the Victorian and Edwardian eras informed and influenced the development of Joyce’s modernist methods. “By placing Joyce’s writing back into the context of nineteenth-century moving image media,” Williams has “provided an explanation for the paradox that his cinematicity seemed ahead of screen practice itself in the views of directors and theorists. . . . address[ing] the deficit in scholarship before the cinematograph on Joyce’s cinematic Modernism” (256).

Drawing on recent work in inter-medial studies like Cinematicity in Media History, edited by Jeffrey Geiger and Karin Littau (to which Williams himself contributed a chapter),¹ and reaching back to some older standards in visual and media theory, such as the influential work of Jonathan Crary and Walter Benjamin,² Williams engages in an impressive project of cultural archeology. Put simply, cinematicity [End Page 209] refers to the practice of relocating the development of cinematic vision and visual practices into a larger and longer inter-medial landscape that includes but is not limited to the advent of cinema, thus providing a broader perspective of visual media and practices in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Paraphrasing Geiger and Littau, Williams defines cinematicity “not as a property exclusively inherent to the apparatuses and institution which became cinema in the early twentieth century, but as a set of evolving characteristics shared by moving images across the whole inter-medial ecology of technologies and forms” (7, my italics). This, in a nutshell, describes Williams’s work here: it is a panoramic portrait of the “inter-medial ecology” of Joyce’s Dublin leading up to and during his formative years and placing Joyce and his work within a matrix of cinematicity that precedes and later coexists with the origins and early development of cinema.

The book is divided into three main chapters, within which the bulk of the heavy lifting is done. Chapter 1 traces the influence of nineteenth-century magic-lantern culture on Dubliners; chapter 2 examines how advances in the technology of photography, particularly in the study of motion, informed the radical stylistic and structural revisions of Stephen Hero into A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; and chapter 3 explores the impact of popular panorama and diorama exhibits in the second half of the nineteenth century, particularly as a tool for British imperial propaganda, on certain visual strategies utilized in Ulysses. These long chapters are book-ended by an excellent “Introduction,” which efficiently establishes the theoretical and methodological foundation within the fields of visual theory and intermedial studies, and a “Coda” that briefly considers the extension of these influences into Finnegans Wake—challenging the generally accepted idea that the Wake is a turn away from the cinematographic and visual towards the more exclusively radiophonic and aural. This is followed by a summation in a short “Conclusion,” which ends with the envoi-like sentence: “I hope that this book has made a convincing case that to understand Joyce’s response to the evolution of cinematicity properly we have to dig deeper into its role in his work both before, as well as after the coming of film” (259). Williams certainly does dig deeper, but if there is a failure in achieving this stated goal, it is in maintaining the balance between the before and after of the book’s subtitle. There is indeed consideration of Joyce’s work in the context of an ongoing evolution of visual technologies, both anteceding and postdating cinema, but the emphasis is heavily on the former.

That is not to diminish the achievement of Williams’s work, however. In fact, quite the opposite: in considering a broader scope through cinematicity, Williams’s book addresses a deficiency in much of the...

审核人：

• 詹姆斯·乔伊斯与电影性：基思·威廉姆斯的电影创作前后
• 杰弗里·朗格（Jeffrey Longacre）（生物）

d espite它的标题，基思·威廉斯的詹姆斯·乔伊斯和Cinematicity不只是一个“乔伊斯和电影”一书。威廉姆斯（Williams）详尽地研究了档案，以便提供迄今为止最全面，最明确的研究，以了解维多利亚时代和爱德华时代的电影前和原始电影视觉文化如何影响并影响乔伊斯现代主义方法的发展。“通过将乔伊斯的著作放回到19世纪的运动图像媒体中，”威廉姆斯“为这种悖论提供了一种解释，即他的电影性似乎在导演和理论家看来早于银幕实践。。。。在关于乔伊斯的电影现代主义的电影摄影术之前解决学术上的不足”（256）。

借鉴了Jeffrey Geiger和Karin Littau（威廉姆斯自己撰写的一章）编辑的媒体历史中的电影学等中间研究的最新成果，[ ^1]可以追溯到视觉和媒体理论的一些较旧的标准，例如具有影响力的²威廉姆斯（Jonathan Crary）和沃尔特·本杰明（Walter Benjamin）的作品，参与了一项令人印象深刻的文化考古项目。简而言之，电影性[结束页209]指将电影视觉和视觉实践的发展转移到更大和更长的中间场景中的实践，包括但不限于电影的出现，从而在十九世纪后期提供了更广阔的视觉媒体和实践视野和二十世纪初。威廉姆斯用盖格和里陶的话来解释电影性，“电影性不是在二十世纪初成为电影的设备和机构所固有的，而是在整个技术和技术的整个中间生态系统中运动图像所共有的一组不断发展的特征。形式”（7，我的斜体字）。简而言之，这描述了威廉姆斯在这里的工作：这是乔伊斯·都柏林在他成长的前几年及其期间的“中间生态”的全景肖像，并将乔伊斯和他的作品置于前后的电影摄影矩阵中与电影的起源和早期发展并存。

这本书分为三个主要章节，其中大部分繁重的工作都在其中完成。第1章追溯了19世纪的魔法灯笼文化对都柏林人的影响；第二章探讨摄影技术的进步，特别是在运动研究方面的进步，如何将斯蒂芬·希罗（Stephen Hero）彻底的文体和结构修改带入《青年艺术家肖像》；第三章探讨了十九世纪下半叶流行的全景和西洋镜展品对尤利西斯使用的某些视觉策略的影响，尤其是作为英国帝国主义宣传的工具。这些长篇文章由出色的“简介”作为书的结尾，“简介”有效地建立了视觉理论和中级研究领域的理论和方法论基础，而“ Coda”则简要考虑了将这些影响扩展到Finnegans Wake中的挑战性人们普遍接受的观念是“唤醒”是一种从电影和视觉转向更纯粹的无线电和听觉的转变。接下来是简短的“结论”的总结，结尾是类似envoi的句子：“我希望这本书提出了令人信服的案例，为了正确理解乔伊斯对电影艺术发展的反应，我们必须更深入地研究它在他之前和之后的工作中的作用电影的到来”（259）。威廉姆斯确实的确在深入研究，但是如果未能达到这个既定目标，那就是要在该书字幕的前后之间保持平衡。在电影的前期和后期电影技术不断发展的背景下，确实考虑了乔伊斯的作品，但重点主要放在前者上。

但是，这并不能减少威廉姆斯作品的成就。实际上，情况恰恰相反：威廉姆斯的书考虑到电影的广阔范围，解决了很多方面的不足。