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

PART TWO FILM THEORY AND AESTHETICS The essays in this section explore the possibilities of sharply focused "piecemeal " theory. Unlike adherents to all-encompassing Grand Theory, the writers in this section start from particular problems and build their theories as they go. The topics are diverse, ranging from women's roles in horror films to the place of imagination in empathizing with characters. In the spirit of dialectical argument, the writers critically examine established positions before mounting their own. While some of the contributors adopt an explicit cognitivist stance, many do not. The essays are united by two assumptions: that theorizing should be driven by questions and problems, not by doctrines of Grand Theory; and that theorizing is most fruitful when its conclusions are tested against both logical criteria and empirical data. The first three essays highlight methodological problems. Stephen Prince contrasts psychoanalytic film theory, which has usually not considered how its claims might be supported by empirical evidence, with recent research in visual communication, particularly that focusing on attention. David Bordwell argues that we can understand the concept ofconvention without recourse to extreme dichotomies between "nature" and "convention." He suggests that a moderate constructivism would acknowledge the importance of "contingent universals" in cinematic representation. James Peterson's essay argues that a cognitive model ofspectatorial activity is the best candidate for explaining how competent spectators make sense of avant-garde films. Among his methodological suggestions is the proposal that, pace semiotics, a code-based model ofcinematic communication needs supplementation by an inferencebased one. Ofparticular concern in recent film theory has been the issue ofhow spectators "identify with" characters or respond emotionally to cinematic displays . These matters are taken up from various angles in the next three essays. Murray Smith criticizes the Brechtian tradition ofsubject-position theory for a reductive dichotomy between reason and emotion. He proposes that the concept ofidentification be dissected into more manageable aspects and illustrates his case with an analysis of The Accused. In considering cinematic characterization , Paisley Livingston offers a discussion of how fictional truth op69 70 Part Two: Film Theory and Aesthetics erates in general and sketches an intentionalist perspective for considering these matters. Similarly, Alex Neill explores how features of the imagination may create the possibility ofour empathizing with fictional characters. These features, he maintains, depend in turn upon beliefs. The rest ofthe essays in this part concentrate on particular types offilms or cinematic techniques. Cynthia A. Freeland examines various fem.inist approaches to horror films. After a critique of psychoanalytic approaches, she moves to a consideration ofhow other methods can generate critical interpretations ofgender ideologies. A similar strategy is pursued by Flo Leibowitz in her study of melodrama. Here she counterposes psychoanalytic explanations ofthe emotional pleasures ofthe genre to more cognitive ones, emphasizing the conceptual judgments implicit in even the most apparently "irrational" emotions. JeffSmith provides the first of two essays on film music. He criticizes the dominant psychoanalytic model of "unheard melodies" and suggesting a more wide-ranging account ofthe ways in which viewers become consciously aware of Hollywood scores. Jerrold Levinson develops a conception ofnondiegetic , or "external," music as part ofthe film's narrational dynamic. In the course of his analysis, he 1inks his theory to conceptions of authorial agency in film narrative generally. Documentary film is the subject ofthe contributions by Noel Carroll and Carl Plantinga. Carroll considers versions ofpostmodernist skepticism about the possibility that nonfiction film can convey objective information about the world. Apart from rebutting contentions about documentary, his analysis suggests that self-contradiction haunts postmodernist theory more generally. Plantinga's essay also targets postmodernist conceptions of documentary, with special attention to their neglect of the genuine recording that takes place in the nonfiction film. Plantinga instead proposes approaching documentary rhetoric from an instrumentalist angle, recognizing recorded images and sounds as only part ofthe evidence put forward by the film. Illusory motion has long been presumed to constitute the sine qua non of cinema, but this premise is interrogated in the final essay ofthis part. Gregory Currie suggests provocatively that there is no illusion ofmovement in cinema and that cinematic motion is as literal and real as the color we see in the world. Currie's discussion scouts alternative conceptions ofrealism and criticizes influential notions ofillusion circulating in recent semiotic and psychoanalytic film theory. In addition, his philosophical inquiry into the nature of movement provides a bridge to the psychological investigations of cinematic representation in Part Three. ...

Share