okay, but so in the mean time... i'm really having trouble figuring out what i want to argue

i've gone over all my notes and parts of the film and my sources (i found a source that discusses 'ambivalence to technology in Amélie' which was really interesting)-- and i think i'm at the point where i want to talk about control in the film

so control vs. freedom and how technology, isolation, mobility etc all play into this need for control and how control is good and bad... but i have no idea where to go from this

i have a few key scenes too that i really like but ahh. 

help. 

dinner table

due to technical difficulties my picture and notes will be up soon

sorry!!

Annotation

Lauren Finkelstein

Annotation: April 7

Scatton-Tessier, Michelle. "Le Petisme: fliring with the sordid in Le Fabuleux

Destin D'Amélie Poulain." Intellect Ltd 4.3 (2004): 197-207. 1 Apr. 2008 .

 

Scatton-Tessier argues that through Amélie’s pleasing aesthetic, a focus on isolated and ordinary people and an overriding sense of loss dominate the film—a contrast from one’s initial, superficial reaction to the film, one of light-hearted pleasure. Fundamental to her case is “petisme”, a recently created French word that focuses on the small pleasures in the world, the quick fixes that Amélie produces throughout the film. Through a logical and clear progression from examples from the film to larger social implications, she guides the reader away from the film’s ability to simple “make its audience feel good” (197). Her subsequent claims—happiness is never shared with others and communication among persons is only possible with the help of machines—are all guided by an overwhelming push to understand the film’s small pleasures as a reaction to increasing personal isolation due to “globalization, crime…and the loss of individual identity in the technological age.” (197). Throughout her meticulous progression of claims, from an overwhelming (un)happiness to the relationship between motion/immobility, she is conscious of her audience—an American reader, not very knowledgeable in French cinema—and provides in depth definitions, concrete examples, and translations of terms and titles. Scatton-Tessier tries to understand and explain the film in relationship to its’ contemporaries, identifying underlying forces within, rather than viewing it as a revolutionary cinematic piece. She goes farther than the film’s careful examination of human vulnerability through a sentimental lens and suggests the fall of the individual in modern society.

· “It is difficult to agree with Jenuet’s claim that Amélie is a fully positive work when every element of his inhabitants’ daily lives from childhood to adulthood is tainted with loneliness and unhappiness.” (200).

This quotation shows Scatton-Tessier trying to go beyond Jeunet’s intended initial joy of Amélie and relate it to an overriding social context. This idea of isolate and continued unhappiness—that is eventually remedy for most—is very applicable in my argument concerning the use or representation of photobooths

· Amélie fixes the lives of others through focusing on smaller, more trivial aspects of their lives. She does not concern herself with overriding and daunting issues, rather she tries to make the here and now a little better. [Original quote: “Amélie intervenes, yet without directly addressing a problems or a desire. She provides what is lost or escaping our knowledge. She fixes small problems. She cannot solve unemployment.” (201).]

While I agree with Scatton-Tessier’s notion of le petisme, I feel that she discounts these small actions a little too quickly. I believe that it is these little actions that perpetuate life and happiness because the larger issues, such as unemployment, cannot be quickly fixed with a grand gesture. It is these little acts that keep us going. 

Critical Analysis of a Secondary Source

today's workshop was really informative. we focused on how to analyze a secondary source (in preparation for our next paper and our RAE). we first focused on the elements to look for within your source : author, rhetorical situation, claims, evidence and assumptions. Within each category we asked several questions trying to delve in deeper, such as after identifying the author, what do we know about him/her, their persona, and how this effect their relationship with and portrayal of their topic. After establishing this basic structure we used an example. The example "real and hyperreal campus architecture favors faux over the original", allowed us to take these theoretical ideas and use them. While the independent reading was helpful, it was in our discussion of this piece that i got most out of this workshop. He really stressed finding supporting evidence to the claims... evidence found verbatim in the text. after noting these claims and examples, we were able to deduce certain unspoken implications that showed us about his "persona" (including his biases). Finally, we looked at the three ways to respond to sources : no, because; yes, but; yes, and. These concrete examples nicely tied together the information from the session. Overall, I think this workshop helped me understand the steps that I have already taken in past papers and broken them apart so that I am able to see everything little thing I am doing (and seeing where I am lacking or where I am not grasping the point)... so i think for the paper i will be able to find more concrete examples and create claims about why she is saying it and how her rhetoric affects the content.

lay of the land

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

I. direct conversation

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.

early on : assignment

the book i'm using is Amélie by Isabelle Vanderschelden

while the only subject heading that is here is "Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (Motion Picture), there are tons of articles and sources in the book's references in the back. I've located a number of new articles that I've ordered on the library website (so hopefully I will have them in 1-2 days). I found several articles in french too which i will read (including a very famous and noted in several sources thus far critique called "amelie pas jolie". 

Once i get them i will created the mla citation 

Also, the introduction only served as a preface to the book. discussing the progression throughout the chapters and also about amelie's success in the box office and globally, as well as briefly mentioning certain controversies (which i have found several articles that support and are against these claims)

Le Petisme. Scatton-Tessier

Petisme is defined as "a reaction to the national concern about everything that is gigantic...globalization, crime...it bears homage to the little things. it prioritizes the local, the immediate". This petisme is the root of the joy in the film. He also compares how Amélie is similar to several other french films (that are usually seen as morbid and onerous, quite unlike one's initial response to amelie). His overriding argument stems from the increasing isolation/individualistic nature of french society as urbanization continues to flourish. He talks about the dichotomy between this happy exterior that is "tainted with loneliness and unhappiness". Another motif throughout the film is the differences between mobility and immobility, both physical and cinematographic. Through re-activation, re-newel, and re-creation "Amelie propels them backwards, providing a necessary distance for them". The combination of ordinary-ness and fantastical ideas, happiness and lonliness and the overwhelming vulnerability make this film more than just a simple love story in the beauty paris.