In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

O'Brien | Mixed Media: Painting in Film Kevin O'Brien University of Nevada Las Vegas Mixed Media: Painting in Film Angela Dalle Vacche. Cinema and Painting: HowArtis Used in Film. University ofTexas Press, 1996. (303 pages. ISBN 0-292-71582-x, cloth; ISBN 0-292-71583-8, pbk.) Not unlike the statement that usually accompanies an artist's show, the introductory paragraph of Cinema and Painting firmly prepares the reader for the exhibition that follows. Professor Dalle Vacche's position that "the advent of cinema has forever changed the meaning of the word art and the meaning of the word 'history'" is literally the rock from which she sculpts her manifesto encouraging colleagues to join her in a new field of "comparative arts." For practitioners of American and Popular Culture Studies, this may not be considered a "new" approach, but when considered against the traditional divisions-curricular, administrative, aesthetic, or otherwise-academia usually imposes on fine versus commercial or popular art forms; a text that insists on breaking down barriers that impede knowledge is worthy of attention. Her belief that "art history as a discipline cannot afford any longer to ignore film studies" should be the epigram that governs any and all department or college meetings on the value of interdisciplinary or intercultural work. All this is in the first paragraph. Vacche's analytical chapters offer fresh readings ofrently offer cinema as a tool for breathing new life into films ranging from Vincente Minnelli's An American inreadings of painters and their paintings. Paris (1951), Mizoguchi's Utamaro (1946), to AlainPopular cinema-whether produced in the U.S., EuCavalier 's TAerese (1986). Her argument thatcinema is a G0?6; Asia or elsewnere-is deeply ingrained in American worthy lens for reexamining art history offers ancuhure within &n¿ outside of the academV) Vacche's book intertextual method that reveals new textual and contex-provides persuasive evidence that the Byzantine distinctual layers of meaning within the selected films. Vacche'süons between fine md commercial art limit the filters method refuses to fall prey to what David Bordwell decries^^ which ^ art formmight be examined. Cinema in Post-Tneory-the single film analysis used to substantiateM(J Paintmg does far more than its subtitle indicates: it agrand theory-but seeks, rather, to use cinema as a cata-convincingly argues through films as diverse as Murnau's lystfor generating revisionist ideas on arthistorical ideasNosferatu (1922), Godard's Pierre le Fou (1965), or and practices. Simultaneously, by showing how "high art"Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev(1966) that comparative art painting is inextricably linked to mainstream filmmaking,smdies ^ a faf more beneficial umbrella from which to she demonstrates thatbecause cinemastraddles the worldskunch critiques 0f ^tworks currently and needlessly segofhigh /low, male/female, domestic/foreign, and elite/regated Qnly the lack ofa strong conduding chapter-the popular perceptions, itis aproficientfilter for reevaluatingbook ends abruptlywith the Cavaher film_reconnecting those labels and categones. Thus, her comparative readingsVacche's insightful analyses to her method and manifesto is breathe new life into films like Antonioni's Red Desertamiss in ^ otherwise stimulating text. (1963) or Rohmer's The Marquise ofO (1975) and concur118 I Film & History ...

pdf

Share