In the context of scholarly re-evaluations of James Joyce’s relation to the literary revival in Ireland at the start of the twentieth century, this essay examines the significance of W.B. Yeats to A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. It traces some of the debates around Celtic and Irish identity within the literary revival as a context for understanding the pre-occupations evident in Joyce’s novel, noting the significance of Yeats’s mysticism to the protagonist of Stephen Hero, and its persistence in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man later. The essay considers the theme of flight in relation to the poetry volume that is addressed directly in the novel, Yeats’s 1899 collection, The Wind Among the Reeds. In the process, the influence of Yeats’s thought and style is observed both in Stephen Dedalus’s forms of expression and in the means through which Joyce conveys them. Particular attention is drawn to the notion of enchantment in the novel, and its relation to the literature of the Irish Revival. The later part of the essay turns to the 1899 performance of Yeats’s play, The Countess Cathleen, at the Antient Concert Rooms in Dublin, and Joyce’s memory of the performance as represented through Stephen towards the end of the novel. Here, attention is given to the mystical and esoteric aspects of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, aspects that the novel shares with the poetry and drama of Yeats.

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

This book presents the first systematic appreciation of Ovid's extensive influence on, and affinity with, modern visual culture. Some topics are directly related to Ovid; others exhibit features, characters, or themes analogous to those in his works. The book demonstrates the wide-ranging ramifications that Ovidian archetypes, especially from the Metamorphoses, have provoked in a modern artistic medium that did not exist in Ovid's time. It ranges from the earliest days of film history (Georges Melies's discovery of screen metamorphosis) and theory (Gabriele D'Annunzio's fascination with the metamorphosis of Daphne; Sergei Eisenstein's concept of film sense) through silent films, classic sound films, commercial cinema, art-house and independent films to modernism and the C.G.I. era. Films by well-known directors, including Ingmar Bergman, Walerian Borowczyk, Jean Cocteau, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Fritz Lang, Max Ophuls, Alain Resnais, and various others, are analyzed in detail.

Ovid on Screen: A Montage of Attractions

monster, one thing cannot be denied: the creature is exceedingly ugly. But in what does this ugliness consist? Such a question is deceptively simple; any recourse to aesthetic theory is bound to come up empty. Traditional categories from the eighteenth century-the sublime, the beautiful, the picturesque-exclude the ugly, and though the grotesque (particularly prominent later in the nineteenth century) may at first seem related, it is never specifically invoked in Frankenstein and must not be confused with the ugly. While the etymological heritage of the

https://marinellienglishclass.pbworks.com/f/ugly.pdf

Facing the Ugly: The Case of Frankenstein

sed quemadmodum si litteras pulchras alicubi inspiceremus, non nobis sufficeret laudare scriptoris articulum, quoniam eas pariles, aequales decorasque fecit, nisi etiam legeremus quid nobis per illas indicaverit: ita factum hoc qui tantum inspicit, delectatur pulchritudine facti ut admiretur artificem; qui autem intellegit, quasi legit, aliter enim videtur pictura, aliter videntur litterae. picturam cum videris, hoc est totum vidisse, laudasse: litteras cum videris, non hoc est totum; quoniam commoneris et legere. But if we were looking at beautifully written letters somewhere, it would not suffice for us to praise the hand of the writer--the fact that he has made them uniform, symmetrical, and elegant--unless we were also reading what, through them, he has conveyed to us. In the same way, the person who views this deed [Christ's miracle of the loaves and fishes] might be so pleased with the deed's beauty as to admire the person performing it. Yet the person who understands it is, as it were, the person who reads. For a picture is looked at in one way, and letters are looked at in another. When you have seen a picture, the activity is complete: to have seen is to have praised. When you have seen letters, the thing is not complete, for you are reminded also to read. Augustine, In Evang. Iohan. (Tractatus 24), 2 This volume investigates the many ways in which modes and practices of viewing were conceptualized in the ancient Greek world. The contributors have turned to both archaeological and literary products, and have used these various 'traces' to excavate a lost discourse of seeing, while formulating (according to the conventions of twenty-first-century academic prose) the social, political, and intellectual parameters of viewing in cultural historical perspective. But ancient Greek authors were themselves acutely sensitive to the stakes of theorizing sight in language--of translating visual stimuli, and the act of critically responding to them into spoken or written discourse. How, if at all, can words mediate sight? In what ways do texts function like images, and images like texts? And which medium better represents the hermeneutics of perception: pictures for viewing, or words for reading? Such questions stretch back to the very beginnings of the Greek literary tradition. Indeed, they might be said to have their conceptual origins in the Homeric description of the shield of Achilles (Book 18 of the Iliad). To my mind, Homer was the first to probe, and indeed contest, the respective limits of words and pictures. At the same time, Homers description of Achilles' shield also laid the ground for critical conventions of analogizing visual and verbal modes of representation: by orally invoking pictures that paradoxically talk, sound, and sing, the shield forged by the Homeric Hephaestus itself forged a tradition of theorizing vision in terms of voice, and vice versa. (1) According to Plutarch, it was Simonides who coined the subsequent aphorism that "painting is silent poetry and poetry is talking painting." (2) But this framework for coming to terms with vision remained a literary critical mainstay. If, as Michael Baxandall (1985, 107) diagnosed, viewing is always a "theory-laden" activity, Greek discourses of vision were loaded with an associated ideology of voice: in the Greek cultural imaginary, and across a remarkably long timespan, theorizing viewing meant relating it to the parallel processes of hearing and reading. (3) While this tradition of conceptualizing sight stretches back to the beginnings of Greek literature, it also stretches forwards to the murky transition from late antique to early medieval intellectual thinking. As the opening epigraph wonderfully attests, Augustine (writing between the late fourth and early fifth centuries CE) also theorized the act of seeing in terms of reading. Where classical forebears tended to champion the parallels between words and pictures, however, Augustine exploited the analogy in order to champion the supremacy of language. …

Apparitions Apparent: Ekphrasis and the Parameters of Vision in the Elder Philostratus's Imagines

................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 5 Captions for Illustrations ....................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 13 Silent Cinema and the Gothic ............................................................................................. 14 A Working Definition of the Monster ................................................................................ 23 Thesis Structure and Outline .............................................................................................. 32 Chapter I The Silent Film Monster in Socio-Political and Cultural Context ............... 36 The Influence of World War I, Medical Advances and Eugenics ...................................... 40 Influences of Other Arts ..................................................................................................... 48 Chapter II Literary Archetypes of Silent Era Monsters ................................................. 67 II.1. Jekyll and Hyde ........................................................................................................... 70 II.2. Dracula ........................................................................................................................ 74 II.3. Erik, the Phantom of the Opera ................................................................................... 84 II.4. Quasimodo .................................................................................................................. 91 II.5. Roderick Usher ........................................................................................................... 96 II.6. Gwynplaine ............................................................................................................... 102 II.7. Orlac .......................................................................................................................... 109 II.8. Frankenstein's Creature ............................................................................................. 116 Chapter III The Cine-Literary Monster and the Language of Silent Film ................. 125 III.1. Composition, Framing, and Camera Angles ........................................................... 128 III.2. Lighting Design ....................................................................................................... 136 III.3. Editing ..................................................................................................................... 139 III.4. Special Effects ......................................................................................................... 142 III.5. Set, Costume, and Makeup Design .......................................................................... 155 III.6. Gestural Language ................................................................................................... 167 Chapter IV The Duality of the Silent Film Monster ..................................................... 174 IV.1. Major Characteristics of the Silent Film Monster and the Challenge of Classification .......................................................................................................................................... 174 IV.2. Theories of the Double and the Other as Applicable to the Monster Figure ........... 181 IV.3. Manifestations of Monstrous Duality in Silent Film ............................................... 185 IV.3.1. Split Monster: The Monster’s Multiple “Creative” Bodies ............................. 185 3 IV.3.2. Romantic Monster: Duality Expressed Through Romantic Subplots ............... 193 IV.3.3. The Monster’s Body as Doppelgänger ............................................................. 195 IV.3.4. Duality Through Intertextual and Mythological Reference ............................. 203 IV.3.5. Duality Through the Inorganic Body ............................................................... 209 IV.3.6. The Mirror ........................................................................................................ 215 IV.3. Doubling the Void: The Monster and the Embodiment of Lack ............................. 221 Chapter V Types of Monstrous Deformity in Silent Film, Their Mechanics and Symbolism ............................................................................................................... 227 V.1. Deformed Bodies ...................................................................................................... 227 V.1.1. The Dwarf .......................................................................................................... 228 V.1.2. The Hunchback .................................................................................................. 232 V.1.3. The “Limper” .................................................................................................... 237 V.1.4. The Horrific Face: Gaping Mouths, Evil Eyes and Missing Noses ................... 245 V.2. The Symbolism of Monstrous Deformity ................................................................. 259 V.2.1. The Deformed Monster as Criminal/Villain ...................................................... 259 V.2.2. The Deformed Monster as Genius/Superman .................................................... 268 V.2.3. Deformity as Spectacle: “Freakery” ................................................................. 273 V.2.4. Deformity as Signifier of Sexual Deviance ........................................................ 280 V.2.5. The “Impossible Real” Monster ........................................................................ 284 Chapter VI The Architectural Monster ............................................................. 293 VI.1. Definition of the Architectural Monster .................................................................. 293 VI.2. Specificity of the Monstrous Environment in Silent Film ...................................... 294 VI.3. Architecture as Monster .......................................................................................... 296 VI.3.1. Architectural Styles as Uncanny, “Immoral,” “Monstrous,” “Repulsive,” and “Plainly Wrong” .......................................................................................................... 296 VI.3.2. Mapping the Monster’s Consciousness Onto Architecture Through the Language of Silent Film ............................................................................................... 301 VI.3.3. Architecture as Character: The Personification of Architectural Environments ...................................................................................................................................... 310 VI.4. The Monster as Architecture ................................................................................... 312 4 VI.4.1. The Symbiosis of Organic Body and Inorganic Environment .......................... 312 VI.4.2. The Monster’s Body as Architecture ................................................................ 314 VI.4.3. The Theory of “Photogenie” and Erasing the Distinction Between Animate and Inanimate Entities ........................................................................................................ 320 VI.5. Demonic Spaces ...................................................................................................... 323 VI.5.1. The Interior as Space for Subjective Meaning ................................................. 324 VI.5.2. The Exterior as Monstrous Universe and Place of Rejection .......................... 334 VI.5.3. The Dualistic Wall: Transgressing Boundaries Between Interior and Exterior ...................................................................................................................................... 339 Chapter VII Monstrous Hybridity and the Fear of Science ............................ 343 VII.1. Devolution and Mutation The Monster as Grotesque Animal Hybrid ................ 344 VII.2. The Monster as Scientist and as Victim of Scientific Progress ............................. 350 Chapter VIII The De-Monstrification of the Silent Film Monster ................. 361 VIII.1. Preproduction: Casting the Monster ..................................................................... 362 VIII.1.1. Persona and Public Image ............................................................................. 362 VIII.1.2. Theatrical Background .................................................................................. 363 VIII.1.3. Romanticised Type Casting ........................................................................... 367 VIII.1.4. Age ................................................................................................................. 370 VIII.2. Screenplay: Romantic Subplots ............................................................................ 373 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 377 Works Cited ............................................................................................................ 385 Filmography ............................................................................................................ 400 Appendix – Charts ................................................................................................. 406

Silent Era adaptations of 19th and early 20th century Gothic novels with a special emphasis on psychological and aesthetic interpretations of the monster figure

Movies speak mainly to the eyes. Though they started talking in words some seventy years ago, what they say to our ears seldom overpowers or even matches the impact of what they show us. This does not mean that film is a medium "essentially" visual, any more than theater is. Many of the films made in the twenty-five years following the 1927 advent of the talkie crackle with dialogue worthy of the stage, which in fact is where many of them originated. Even in the visually captivating Citizen Kane, the single word Rosebud resonates just as memorably as any of its shots, and one notable film from the mid-twentieth century-Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard (1950)-has been plausibly read as an allegory of how the word contests the power of the cinematic image. But whether or not this film ultimately "confirms the triumph of the female image," as W. J. T. Mitchell suggests,1 or demonstrates the ironizing power of the word, it cannot help but remind us of what film and film theory alike

Looking at the Monster: "Frankenstein" and Film

It has long been a commonplace that pictures say more than words: that a picture is not only worth a thousand words, but also speaks to everyone. While Expressionism has shaken this old assumption, it has nonetheless proved remarkably tenacious. In late seventeenth-century England, John Dryden declared that painting speaks ‘the tongue of ev'ry land.’ In the late twentieth century, a poster published by the International Photography Council says that ‘the world speaks in 1994 languages, but sees in only one: Photography, the universal language.’ It should not be a surprise that professional photographers want us to consider their language universal, but most readers of the poster probably do not even realise that it makes a claim — let alone wondering if the claim is true. For pictures can sometimes ambush the mind, circumventing our logic and verbal defenses. Part of what makes pictorial language seem universal is its seemingly privileged access to the viewer's heart or soul. Quintilian,...

Speaking for pictures : the rhetoric of art criticism

In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Michel Foucault defines the various sciences as so many kinds of discourse resulting from what he calls ‘discursive formation’. Every branch of scientific knowledge, he argues, is the product of an historically definable process, beginning with ‘the moment at which a single system for the formation of statements is put into operation’ and culminating in formalization, when a particular scientific discourse can define the axioms it needs, the elements it uses, and the propositional structures it recognizes as legitimate.1 It is not at all clear how well this model will explain the literature, the literary criticism, or literary theory of any one historical period, and it is still less clear that this model will accommodate the unwieldy collection of things that have been written about works of art. There is no such thing as a coherent discourse about art. In its place we find a bewildering variety of discursive practices that diverge and proliferate: art history, a...

Painting against poetry: Reynolds's Discourses and the discourse of Turner's art

http://liverpool.metapress.com/index/U73W1802J180603P.pdf

Literacy and Picturacy: How Do We Learn to Read Pictures?

In 1833, nearing the end of a long, arduous, and often frustrating struggle to gain adequate recognition for his achievements in landscape painting, Constable expressed the hope that ‘I may yet make some impression with my “light” — my “dews” — my “breezes” — my bloom and freshness — no one of which qualities has yet been perfected on the canvas of any painter in the world’.1 Constable's faith in what he might do even ‘yet’ at the age of 56 calls to mind the ending of the Prelude, where Wordsworth looks forward to writing with Coleridge the prophetic poem of mankind's redemption, ‘surely yet to come’.2 Both statements of expectation resonate with poignancy. The Prelude itself struck Coleridge as ‘prophetic’ enough to place its author ‘in the choir/Of ever-enduring men’,3 but Wordsworth died without ever keeping the promise made at the end ofhis poem. A comparable fate befell Constable's yearning to ‘make some impression’ with his light, bloom, and freshness. At the Paris Salon of I824 his paintin...

James A. W. Heffernan

Papers

Looking at the Monster: "Frankenstein" and Film

Speaking for pictures : the rhetoric of art criticism

Painting against poetry: Reynolds's Discourses and the discourse of Turner's art

Literacy and Picturacy: How Do We Learn to Read Pictures?

Wordsworth, Constable, and the poetics of chiaroscuro