On governmentality and screens

Grieveson, Lee

doi:10.1093/screen/hjn079

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analysis shows that these two roles are fostered by the political, economic, and social context in which the films are produced. When it serves as a representation, cinematic space is an arena for discourses and state control practices that transform cinematic space into a particular technology of the self, a space for the articulation of ideas about conduct, government, and the subject (Grieverson, 2009). In this role cinematic space has the ability to convince the viewer that it constitutes a natural site with no specific point of view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When functioning as representation, cinematic space is an arena for control practices shaping the modalities of selfhood and citizenship. In this sense, cinematic space becomes a particular technology of the self, a space for the articulation of ideas about conduct and the subject (Grieveson, 2009). The form of power operating through the cinematic space marks individuals by their own individuality, attaches them to their own identity, and imposes a law of truth, which the individual must recognize and which others must recognize in them.…”

Section: Types Of Cinematic Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeing the Romanian Transition in Cinematic Space

Andreescu

2013

Space and Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the space of the nation as presented in the films produced in Romania during the communist, transition to democracy, and democratic eras. The author’s analysis addresses cinematic space, the rules that exist within it, the authority of the space, as well as the specific ways in which certain identities are created and integrated in such cinematic spaces. The author traces the persistence of a number of spaces in films produced under different political regimes, transformations or substitutions of spaces, as well as the changes of rules and authorities. The article illustrates the way political, economic, and social changes are represented or imagined in the cinematic space. Special attention is directed to the relationship between the city and the countryside and to how this relationship has changed over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Types Of Cinematic Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing the Romanian Transition in Cinematic Space

Andreescu

2013

Space and Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frameworks of governmentality have often been used to analyze state‐driven projects in relation to wider rationalities that drive philanthropy, NGOs, family dynamics, and self‐regulation (Rose et al, , p. 91). Scholars of film and media have used governmentality to discuss the management and measurement of film audiences and pedagogical projects of cinema, as well the relationship between the media and practices of citizenship (Grieveson, ; Jaikumar, ; Miller, ). In South Asian studies, scholars of governmentality have analyzed the logics and techniques of rural and urban improvement measures, including colonial and postcolonial policies and practices such as mapping and census taking, to understand the rationale of governing that emerges from various sources: often the state, but also NGOs, community organizations, and so forth (A. Gupta, ; Legg, ; Prakash, ).…”

Section: Censorship Democratic Representation and Governmentality Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporary Bans and Bad Laws: TheAarakshanBan and the Logics of Censorship in Contemporary India

Schulz

2015

Communication, Culture & Critique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article traces several sites of film regulation in contemporary India including the censor board, street protestors, television commentators, and state governments. Among these sites, the article focuses on the quasi-legal banning of the Hindi film Aarakshan (2011) by the Mayawati-led state government of Uttar Pradesh. Although the state government purported to be securing public order by banning the film, critics vociferously objected to the ban as overstepping the limits of state power and violating freedom of speech. I argue that while the mainstream debate was delimited by competing constitutional claims and the ban was motivated by a display of support for a local Dalit constituency, both operated within a censorial governmentality driven by an ideal of representative censorship.

show abstract

“…As Lee Grieveson has aruged, film emerged in the early 1920s as a particular kind of governmental ambition. Early experiments in film constituted, for Grieveson, one “node around and through which flowed discoruses and practices of government as a shaping of the modalities of selfhood, citizenship and populations … part of a liberal political technology.” (Grieveson , 186) Most striking in this regard is Grierson's conception of the geography of personal conduct that film can help to establish. In order to manage “the conduct of conduct”, the demarcations that constitute governable subjects must first be marked in space and the relations between self‐and other must be specified and mapped; a kind of geography in which we situate ourselves in relation to ourselves and to others .…”

Section: Governmentalities Of Progressive Filmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“An Instrument for Reaching Into Experience”: Progressive Film at the Rockefeller Boards, 1934–1945

Aitken¹

2015

J Historical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of progressive filmmaking in the interwar period is often associated with John Grierson, the British documentary movement and the influence it traced abroad. This paper argues, however, that more particular attention needs to attend the specific context for progressive filmmaking in the United States. To make this argument, this paper foregrounds two strands of progressive filmmaking that were pursued alongside, and often in tension with each other at the Rockefeller Boards between 1934 and 1945. The Rockefeller Boards pursued both a version of social-realist documentary in the Griersonian tradition as well as a project focused on "human relations" films. As this paper suggests, the human relations project contrasted with Grierson's social documentary by linking film to a particular kind of psychological interior; a self not oriented to the social world but to the internal spaces of psychological and personality development. This implies a complex process of cultural diffusion in which Grierson's model was filtered through, and ultimately displaced by, a set of concerns and preoccupations unique to the American context.

show abstract

On governmentality and screens

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Seeing the Romanian Transition in Cinematic Space

Seeing the Romanian Transition in Cinematic Space

Temporary Bans and Bad Laws: TheAarakshanBan and the Logics of Censorship in Contemporary India

“An Instrument for Reaching Into Experience”: Progressive Film at the Rockefeller Boards, 1934–1945

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About