FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4303859249> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4303859249 endingPage "487" @default.
• W4303859249 startingPage "484" @default.
• W4303859249 abstract "Reviewed by: The Cinematic Language of Theo Angelopoulos by Vrasidas Karalis Eleftheria Rania Kosmidou (bio) Vrasidas Karalis, The Cinematic Language of Theo Angelopoulos. New York and Oxford: Berghahn, 2021. Pp. x + 207. 24 illustrations. Cloth $135.00. Vrasidas Karalis’s monograph The Cinematic Language of Theo Angelopoulos, published by Berghahn in 2021, is an important addition to the scholarly study of Greek film. Firstly, it investigates Theo Angelopoulos’s work in terms of the filmmaker’s biographical context, largely avoiding the established Brechtian methodological framework for discussing his films. Secondly, despite an abundance of journal articles, only a few books exist in the English language that deal with the work of Angelopoulos. Since Andrew Horton’s seminal books The Films of Theo Angelopoulos: A Cinema of Contemplation (1997a) and The Last Modernist: Theo Angelopoulos (1997b), David Bordwell’s Figures Traced in Light: On Cinematic Staging (2005), and Irini Stathi’s edited collection Theo Angelopoulos (2000), Karalis’s monograph is the first serious effort to reopen and recreate a space for academic discourse on Theo Angelopoulos’s cinema internationally. Within the field of film studies, much attention has been given to Angelopoulos’s distinct cinematic language, and the wider Greek and international literature is rife with studies analyzing and exploring his Brechtian cinema. In The Cinematic Language of Theo Angelopoulos, however, Karalis discusses the filmmaker’s work differently. Using mainly philosophical but also art-critical discourse analysis and occasionally Freudian terminology, he situates Angelopoulos’s work within biographical and sociopolitical contexts as he explores the ways in which the filmmaker experimented with his work throughout his life, constantly inventing and reinventing himself as a global auteur consciously attempting to create a global cinematic language. Karalis argues that the dominant mode of reading Angelopoulos’s films through a Brechtian lens is misleading and has restricted the study of his films. While acknowledging Brechtian elements in Angelopoulos’s early films, he sees a change toward Aristotelian catharsis and empathy after 1977. Moreover, after Alexander the Great (Megalexandros, 1980), Angelopoulos completely abandoned his epic mode to adapt a “fluid visual lyricism” (42). Karalis attributes these changes to Angelopoulos’s political, existential, and personal meditation, his self-questioning and self-redefining. As Karalis sets out to examine the continual evolution of Angelopoulos’s approach to his films, one of his first tasks is to present the reader with a brief chronological overview of the filmmaker’s life and work—including his collaboration with his longtime friend Vasilis Rafailidis when they co-founded the [End Page 484] journal Contemporary Cinema (Synchronos Kinimatografos) in 1969—together with details of his films’ production and reception. Karalis provides evidence of Angelopoulos’s director of photography (DoP) Giorgos Arvanitis’s contribution to his cinematic universe, crediting Arvanitis for introducing an anti-illusionist style of minimalistic filming. Situating Angelopoulos and Arvanitis’s images within the category of the Deleuzian “planes of immanence,” non-referential images that exist within themselves and in themselves (Deleuze 2001), Karalis contends that their collaboration created an emotional cinema because of the Deleuzian completeness and singularization of their visual images. This is what differentiates Angelopoulos’s earlier films from the later films in which he worked with DoP Andreas Sinanos, a collaboration that resulted in a lyrical and fluid cinema. Karalis also attributes some of the changes he discerns in Angelopoulos’s work to Eleni Karaindrou’s post-1984 musical contribution to Angelopoulos’s cinema: her scores are non-diegetic and her emotional melodies rectify Angelopoulos’s narratives, the distanced performances in his films, and their overall visual style. Karalis recognizes four stages in Angelopoulos’s work, which he eloquently calls a polyptych, borrowing a term from painting and art history. Referring to the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard’s ethical and religious teleological stages of human life (Kierkegaard 1992), he argues that Angelopoulos seems to have gone through these stages in a reverse order: from knowledge and strong political ideology to doubt, from doubt to introspection, from introspection to redemption through aesthetics, eventually (in his last films) reaching nihilism and emotionalism. Abandoning Brecht and the Brechtian acting mode in 1977, Angelopoulos became more interested in poetry in his quest for what Karalis calls “the cinematic sublime” (148). His..." @default.
• W4303859249 created "2022-10-09" @default.
• W4303859249 creator A5047172440 @default.
• W4303859249 date "2022-10-01" @default.
• W4303859249 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4303859249 title "The Cinematic Language of Theo Angelopoulos by Vrasidas Karalis" @default.
• W4303859249 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2022.0036" @default.
• W4303859249 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4303859249 type Work @default.
• W4303859249 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4303859249 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4303859249 hasAuthorship W4303859249A5047172440 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C170494952 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C178288346 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C519580073 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C547195049 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C58348228 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C59430087 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C111472728 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C124952713 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C138885662 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C142362112 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C144024400 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C166957645 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C170494952 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C178288346 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C2779343474 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C41895202 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C519580073 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C52119013 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C547195049 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C58348228 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C59430087 @default.
• W4303859249 hasConceptScore W4303859249C95457728 @default.
• W4303859249 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4303859249 hasLocation W43038592491 @default.
• W4303859249 hasOpenAccess W4303859249 @default.
• W4303859249 hasPrimaryLocation W43038592491 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W1932434642 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W2031895559 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W2072238409 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W2154631889 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W2327006902 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W2800674105 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W3192684787 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W810371917 @default.
• W4303859249 hasRelatedWork W986964253 @default.
• W4303859249 hasVolume "40" @default.
• W4303859249 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4303859249 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4303859249 workType "article" @default.