so my internet got very messed up and just deleted my entire post...
Le Petisme: flirting with the sordid in Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain ; Michelle Scatton-Tessier, 2004
II. Scatton-Tessier is an Assistant Professor of French at UNC & has a part-time film studies appointment there. She also has a PhD in French Film and Literature from U of Iowa, 2001.
III. 2004 : pretty contemporary. It was published three years after the release of the film; therefore, the initial worldwide enthusiasm has settled down (there has been enough time for reflection, rather than reaction...while also being contemporary enough to hold a lot relevance to the film and to readers today).
IV. The audience has presumably seen Amélie and has a general (not extensive) knowledge of contemporary french cinema. Scatton-Tessier takes a great deal of time to make sure that the reader understands the context and points within the article through thorough explanations that touch on cinematic and social implications/relevance. She elaborates on her claims, such as when she talks about "ways of filming" (in modern french cinema), she continues by saying "they are all marked by a realist aesthetic accompanied by 'a very ambiguous social and political discourse'" (198)-- she doesn't assume that we are connoisseurs.
V. This direct secondary source extensively covers my cultural object (Amélie is even scene in the title of the article); however, rather than dissecting the film, she looks at the film in relationship to other contemporary films, socialital pressures and changes and jeunet's portrayal of all of this.
VI. She has a women's study focus. In particular, she focuses on the representations of women's appropriation of public and private space in french literature and film ** also, she is published on pedagogical tools for teaching French film courses related to "la condition des femmes" (this teachable structure is seen throughout her argument)
VII. description of "petisme" was very helpful since it took what i had discussed in my RA II and also what makes Amélie so appealing and unique and made it concrete. She has a wonderful way of taking abstract ideas such as isolation in relation to increasing urbanization and coherently answering "so what?" to all of these claims. Another interesting point she made what the motif of mobile/immobile that opens up another way of approaching the film and its progress (also i began relating it to the still shots of a photo booth?). She takes the time to discuss (extensively enough, but without pretension or big words) what she is trying to get across. the logical progression and division within the article was also very helpful. Each paragraph, each section had a clear beginning and ending (that served to resolve and further discuss implications off-screen). She looks at social aspects, camera angles, motifs, character relations... everything and ties it all together into an appealing and interesting argument. My one issue with it was that she referenced a number of other french films a decent number of times and since i have not seen them, they muddled her argument or detached from the directness of what she was saying.
1 comment:
What a great post! Your consideration of the period in which it falls (after the hub-bub, within a more reflective time frame) and her own scholarly person as instructor. And here we have page numbers as well!
As you read and re-read this source, look at her transitions among paragraphs, the mini-arguments she creates in her topic sentences. She sounds like an excellent example of clear academic writing.
You may be a bit more generous with her at the end--you critique her for referencing too many other French films, which actually seems rather appropriate to me. Do you mean that she mentions them without enough contexutalization, summamary, etc?
Post a Comment