ABSTRACT

Where are the women within historical and theoretical discourses on the cinephilic phenomenon? Christian Keathley boasts that the cinephile’s experience draws its intensity partially from the fact that ‘it cannot be reduced or tamed by interpretation’ (2005, 9). I question whether the female cinephile is allotted that same experience, ‘untamed’ as it were. Both sides of cinephilia’s ‘Janus face’ have been known to close their eyes to the female cinephile, or otherwise enforce a binary between her consumerist ‘fan’ participation and the traditionally masculine, legitimately ‘untamed’ enthusiasm of the male cinephile. My article raises the question of whether we can look to working class women’s moviegoing practices pre-1920 as new ground for theoretical and historical discourse on cinephilia. Before widespread efforts to ‘uplift’ cinema became more standardized, and before critical attention to cinema as an art form became ubiquitous, there could be fruitful ground to honor and expand upon cinephilia’s ‘radical potentialities’ by repositioning cinephilic imperatives like the cinephile’s ritual, ‘panoramic perception’, ‘the privileged moment’, and ‘the cinephilic anecdote’ in a different historical context. This article insists on new ontological territory in the study of cinephilia to include marginalized women as active participants in cinema’s early cultural production.

摘要

在电影迷现象的历史和理论论述中，女性在哪里？克里斯蒂安·基思利 (Christian Keathley) 吹嘘说，影迷的体验部分源于“它不能被解释减少或驯服”（2005, 9）这一事实。我质疑女影迷是否被分配了同样的经历，就像“野性”一样。众所周知，影迷的“Janus face”的双方都对女性影迷闭上了眼睛，或者以其他方式在她的消费主义“粉丝”参与与男性影迷传统上男性化的、合法的“野性”热情之间实施二元化。我的文章提出了一个问题，即我们是否可以将 1920 年前工人阶级女性的观影实践视为关于迷影的理论和历史论述的新基础。在“提升”电影的广泛努力变得更加标准化之前，在对电影作为一种艺术形式的批判性关注变得无处不在之前，通过重新定位像影迷的仪式这样的影迷的必要性，可能会有丰硕的基础来尊重和扩展影迷的“激进潜力”，“全景感知”、“特权时刻”和“影迷轶事”在不同的历史背景下。本文坚持在迷影研究中开辟新的本体论领域，将边缘化女性纳入电影早期文化生产的积极参与者。不同历史背景下的“全景感知”、“特权时刻”和“影迷轶事”。本文坚持在迷影研究中开辟新的本体论领域，将边缘化女性纳入电影早期文化生产的积极参与者。不同历史背景下的“全景感知”、“特权时刻”和“影迷轶事”。本文坚持在迷影研究中开辟新的本体论领域，将边缘化女性纳入电影早期文化生产的积极参与者。