PG Poster competition 2018

Our winner, who receives our prize of £100, was Abigail Whittall (University of Winchester) for The Many Faces of the 21st Century Nazi Monster.

 

 

By democratic popular vote, our runner up was Tashi Petter (Queen Mary University of London) for Sponsored Silhouettes: Rediscovering the ‘Useful’ Films of Lotte Reiniger in Britain.

 

Huge congratulations to Tashi and Abigail and many thanks to all who submitted posters!!

 May 2018

Open Screens

Open Screens is the new, open-access online journal of the British Association of Film, Television and Screen Studies (BAFTSS). The scope of the journal is international, and its vision is inter-disciplinary. It encourages innovative contributions from scholars of film, television and other screen-based media, publishing research articles, commentaries, reviews and audio-visual research-by-film-practice. In keeping with the mission of BAFTSS, contributions from both established and postgraduate scholars are considered, and contributors do not need to be members of the Association.

We are particularly delighted to be collaborating with our publishers, the Open Library of the Humanities, because through their forward-thinking Library Partnership Subsidy model of collective funding, a growing community of libraries can economically support their entire publishing infrastructure, instead of just purchasing individual journals. This allows for academic journals that are gold, open access with open licenses, and with no author fees (article processing charges or ‘APCs’) charged at all. We encourage our members who are based in HEIs and other research institutions to speak to their subject librarians and encourage them to sign up to the OLH partnership.

Open Screens ranges over the historical and the contemporary, and it aims to embrace film, television, screen and media studies, as well as related disciplines across the Humanities and beyond, such as area studies, gender studies and sexuality studies. Echoing the broad principles of the BAFTSS Annual Awards, Open Screens encourages work ranging in methodology: textual analysis, genre and industry studies, archival and theoretical work, activist filmmaking and applied practice of relevance to emerging technologies within the film industry.

This is an exciting new venture, not only because of the journal’s ethos of open access online publishing, but also because of its openness and flexibility in terms of the range of submissions we are seeking, from traditional journal articles, through discussion pieces and reviews, as well as the publication of practice research. We believe it is truly ground-breaking for a screen studies journal to integrate traditional publication with the publication of academic filmmaking. This also builds on the growing success of the BAFTSS Practice Research Awards, which were initiated by Charlotte Crofts and are now chaired by Agnieszka Piotrowska, and which saw a record number of submissions in 2018, its third year. It is hoped that BAFTSS can continue to contribute to the growing validation of screen practice research within the academy.

CFP: Open Screens – open call.

Open Screens aims to create a fresh, critical space for the exploration of screen cultures. Research articles, commentaries and film practice research addressing any salient issue in the disciplines of film, television and screen studies will be considered. Items are published on a rolling basis (so there are no regular deadlines), though it is anticipated that dedicated, themed collections (with their own call for papers) may occasionally be published too.

Full research articles (up to 8000 words), commentaries (up to 3000 words), both of which will be double-blind peer-reviewed, and film practice items (films plus commentary of up to 1000 words) are encouraged. Vimeo clips can be embedded into published pieces, provided they are lodged, with academic discussion, under the author’s ‘Creative Commons’ account.

For submission details, author guidelines etc, please visit the journal.

Any queries may be directed to the Journal Editor-in-Chief, Dr Andrew Moor.

Membership Appeal:

 The British Association of Film, Television and Screen Studies exists to:

  • promote the recognition of the discipline and represent the academic and professorial interests of those engaged in it to the academy, government, funding agencies, the cultural industries and the public;
  • encourage best teaching and research practice;
  • promote the training of postgraduate students in research.
  • give researchers and practitioners the opportunity to attend and present a paper at the annual BAFTSS conference.

The Association depends upon membership in order to carry out this work. Please join, by payment of a very modest membership fee, here.

 

BAFTSS ELECTIONS

Members of BAFTSS are hereby notified that elections to our Executive Committee are scheduled to take place at our Annual General Meeting on April 13th 2018, University of Kent, Canterbury.

The regulations governing our Association’s elections can be found under Paragraph 6.3 of our Constitution.

The following roles are due for election for the period 2018–2021.

  • Vice Chair
  • Treasurer
  • 4 x Ordinary Member positions.

Nominations for any of these roles are therefore invited. Nominations shall comprise a proposer, a seconder and the agreement of the nominee, all three of whom must be current members of BAFTSS. Information on how to join is here.

The strict deadline for us receiving nominations is Noon on Monday 9th April. Nominations should be send by email with ‘BAFTSS 2018 ELECTION NOMINATION’ in the subject field, to BOTH Andrew Moor (Chair) and Sue Harris (Secretary): a.Moor@mmu.ac.uk and s.harris@qmul.ac.uk

Andrew Moor, March 29th 2018

BAFTSS Awards 2018

The BAFTSS Awards are now accepting submissions from members of BAFTSS in the following categories for the Awards ceremony at the Annual Conference in 2018 at the University of Kent.

  • Best Monograph
  • Best Edited Collection. This includes both books and special issues of journals. Editors must be BAFTSS members; contributors need not be.
  • Best Practice Research Portfolio
  • Best Journal Article
  • Best Doctoral Student Article or Chapter. Contestants can enter either a published journal article or a chapter in an edited collection to the competition. We will require proof that the submission was accepted while the contestant was still a Doctoral Student (for example an email from the Registry confirming student status and an email from the publisher confirming acceptance). Please note that this Award will also include a prize: the equivalent of £100 in Manchester University Press books. We are very grateful to Matthew Frost of MUP for his support.

Submissions must have been published in the period 1 September 2016-31 August 2017.

Items can be submitted either by individual authors/filmmakers, or by journals (for articles), or by publishers (for books and edited collections). Publishers can initiate one submission only, and should seek the agreement of the author concerned, as well as ensuring that the author is a BAFTSS member. Book chapters are not eligible for the standard Best Journal Article category.

We will only accept items sent electronically for the competition. Books and edited collections should be submitted as final agreed PDFs without passwords; we do not accept material only available through Adobe Digital Editions.

For Books, Edited Collections, Journal Articles and Postgraduate Student Articles or Chapters, contestants should seek approval from publishers before sending material to James Leggott by 28 November 2017.

The Practice Research Award has a separate Submission Form explaining how contestants should proceed. Please contact James Leggott for a copy of it, which should then be completed and sent to the same address by 28 November 2017.  The winning work will be announced at the BAFTSS Annual Conference and showcased on the Screenworks website.

Submissions to all panels will be acknowledged. Winners, runners-up and ‘honourable mentions’ will be announced at the BAFTSS Annual Conference 2018 (University of Kent 12-13 April 2018). They will be contacted in March to confirm whether they are able to attend the annual conference, which for them will be free of enrolment fee (but not accommodation and meals).

Diversity and the Cannes Film Festival (Alex Marlowe-Mann)

As I write, this year’s Cannes Film Festival has just drawn to a close. This got me thinking again about festivals, such a hot topic within academic circles in recent years – witness the lively debate on the Film Festivals panel organised by Dina Iordanova for this year’s BAFTSS conference, which revealed that the majority of the academics in the audience had some kind of stake in festivals, either as researchers, organisers, programmers or collaborators.

Cannes never gets the same kind of traction in the mainstream media as the Oscars, but one item that got even the non-specialist press interested this year was the presence of Will Smith on the jury. Inevitably, this soon became embroiled in the aftermath of ‘Oscars So White’ debate, which dominated the 2016 Academy Awards and arguably fed into Moonlight’s win this year – following the La La Land fiasco and yet more kerfuffle about prejudice within the Academy.

But is Will Smith being on the Cannes jury really significant or newsworthy? Is this just a case of Hollywood and the Anglo-American press imposing its concerns and values onto another festival? For even though France has its own race-related issues (as evidenced by Marie Le Pen’s campaign in the French Presidential election last month), Cannes is a very different event from the Oscars. Indeed, it prizes itself on representing World Cinema (rather than awarding a token ‘Best Foreign Language’ award), and it was undoubtedly instrumental in opening up cinemas from around the globe to Western audiences. So is diversity really a problem for Cannes in the way that it is for the Oscars?

Both Will Smith and fellow juror Jessica Chastain seemed to think so, complaining about both black and female representation in this year’s Cannes selection. This inevitably resulted in a brief flurry of articles across the web on the question of diversity in Cannes. So what is the Festival’s record in this regard?

A quick look at recent Palme d’Or winners reveals that the last decade alone has seen winners from Romania, Thailand, France/Tunisia and Turkey. As far as gender is concerned, female winners of the Palme d’Or are fewer and further between, the most recent being Jane Campion, jointly for The Piano over two decades ago. However, this might be more a reflection of the fewer number of women directors currently making films than on the Festival itself. Indeed, recent studies have shown that European film culture is still inhospitable to supporting women’s careers into filmmaking. Nevertheless, this year saw Sofia Coppola take best director for The Beguiled and Léonor Serraille the Caméra d’Or for Jeune Femme (Montparnasse-Bienvenüe), while Lynne Ramsay scooped Best Screenplay for The Killing of a Sacred Deer.

But diversity is not only an issue on the screen, but also behind the scenes. So what about the organisation and running of the Festival itself? A look at jury presidents reveals that only nine women have served as jury president since the Festival began in 1946 (Jeanne Moreau served twice), but that four of these were in the last decade, which suggests that recent years have seen an effort to redress this gender imbalance. Only four non-Westerners have served as jury president since the Festival began (Tetsurō Furukaki was the first in 1962) and the most recent of these was Wong-kar Wai in 2006. This suggests a continued Western-bias in a festival that prides itself on representing World Cinema. This is perhaps a cause for concern and feeds back into debates about the extent to which Cannes today really does represent the best in new world cinema, rather than relying on a roster of auteurs already well-established in the West.

However, when one turns to the make-up of the jury itself, the picture looks rather different. Putting aside the case of Will Smith (black, but still Western), we can see that over the past decade the jury has been consistently made up of four male and four female jurors, while the past five years have consistently contained two non-Western jurors per year (the previous half decade varied between two and four per year). Rather than reflecting the variety of global film culture, the absolute consistency of these numbers reveals a deliberate strategy on the part of the festival to meet certain diversity and equality targets. Of course, diversity should be central to a European Film Festival, given that the EU’s motto is ‘United in Diversity’, and diversity plays an important role within its legislative framework. But such targets are arbitrary (why two and not four non-Western jurors?) and artificial, and their mechanical application risks becoming as stifling as the cultural bias they set out to redress.

The question remains open, and could equally be applied to Europe’s other major festivals – Berlin (two women and three non-Westerners on a seven-man jury headed by Paul Verhoeven this year) and Venice (five women and two non-Westerners on a nine-man jury headed by Sam Mendes last year – with this year’s line-up still to be announced). And that is without even raising the question of other areas of diversity (sexual orientation, disability, age, etc.) Or, indeed, the question of the demographics of the rest of the Festival’s staff beyond the elite and highly publicised jury.

James Leggott on the time for television

Browsing through the TV listings guide for the Easter weekend, I noticed with interest the announcement of the new Doctor Who series.  Although I must admit to being only a casual viewer of the show of late, this struck me as a little odd.  Since its reboot in 2005, hasn’t Doctor Who usually begun its run around September time? Isn’t it one of those family or popular shows, like Downton Abbey, The X Factor or Strictly Come Dancing, traditionally broadcast in the run-up to Christmas?   Haven’t I always watched Doctor Who with the curtains long drawn? I certainly associate it with that achingly long stretch of term-time between the August bank holiday and the festive season, a time when weekend TV treats do their bit to ward off the gloom of shortening nights and back-to-school melancholy. 

            But I’m wrong.  At least in its recent incarnation, Doctor Who has actually been mostly been shown roughly between Easter and summer (although there have been some recent deviations to that pattern), rather than September to Christmas.  I think, though, that this reveals more than just my increasingly addled memory.  I’d argue that my (false) association of the show with that ‘back to school’ moment of early September stems from the historical tendency of British broadcasters to launch their flagship programmes around that time. In other words, the fact that Doctor Who feels to me like a September show (even if it isn’t) just goes to prove how a rhythm of seasonality affects my experience and memory of certain TV shows.    In a similar way, every December I find myself flicking excitedly through the Christmas issue of the Radio Times, as I did when I was young, when the broadcasters would run their big film premieres and other exciting goodies:  seasons of classic movies, special editions of sitcoms, a higher dose of high cultural programming etc. 

Obviously, the age of streaming and on-demand has largely consigned family squabbles over the remote control to history, and scheduling – whether at Christmas or not –  is far less potent that it was. But seasonality still plays an important role in how many of us consume and appreciate television.  Not only can certain programmes or genres can feel inherently right or wrong in their scheduling, depending on when they are broadcast, but the calendar year itself is measured by many through particular TV rituals:  from summer sport and music festivals, to season-specific nature shows like Springwatch and its ilk or awards ceremonies and charity fundraisers pegged to a particular time of year; and from the Ghost Stories for Christmas  strand of supernatural frighteners, and hoaxes on 1 April, to the Eurovision Song Contest every May (a date I’m sure is ring-fenced in many a social calendar). 

And there’s movies too:   do the terrestrial broadcasters still consider The Sound of Music and The Great Escape to be obligatory Bank Holiday fare?  Writing in the Radio Times in the run-up to Easter, their columnist Alison Graham [link: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-04-13/why-dont-broadcasters-make-easter-a-special-occasion] bemoaned the lack of distinctiveness of Easter TV:   for example, ITV’s flagship show on Easter Monday is the long-awaiting finale of the crime drama Broadchurch – gripping stuff, but hardly uplifting.  And then there are seasonal rituals in broadcasting that are never seen by viewers. I have been long been intrigued by the curious tradition – stretching back to the 1970s and earlier – of TV technicians making their own in-house compilations of bloopers and self-devised sketch material around the festive period:  many of these so-called ‘Christmas VT’ tapes can be found on YouTube.

The phenomenon of television’s relation to the changing seasons, and the embedding of certain TV rituals within the national consciousness, have of course been recognised in academic scholarship. But there has been surprisingly little sustained attention of this.  I’m therefore pleased – and hope readers won’t mind a promotional plug here! – that a recent issue of the Journal of Popular Television (for which I am principal editor) is devoted to the topic. [Link:  https://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-issue,id=3269/]    Guest edited by Derek Johnston, author of a recent book on the complex tradition of seasonal supernatural television, its articles on a range of international case-studies will hopefully inspire more work on the inter-relationships between broadcasting cultures and seasonality.    Examples include the ‘River Cottage’ cookery shows of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, the role of ‘festive’ broadcasting in socialist countries, the significance of Christmas in Mad Men, the figuration of Halloween in crime dramas, and the strategic summer scheduling of ‘female-orientated’ comedy drama. 

A future issue of the Journal of Popular Television will also include a ‘dossier’ of articles pertaining directly to Christmas and the New Year – covering such topics as what happens when the ‘Christmas’ specials of Downton Abbey are shown out of season beyond the UK, and the festive ‘craft’ shows fronted by Kirstie Allsopp.  I’m hoping that this particular issue will be published in the winter months, as a kind of scholarly equivalent to the infamous ‘double issue’ of the Radio Times – and is thus, perhaps for the first and last time, an academic publication trying to get its readers into the festive spirit.  Merry Christmas everyone!

Agnieszka Piotrowska on psychoanalysis, film noir and the ‘Nasty Woman’

 

This has been a very busy time for me, as I know has been the case for many academics. Not only did we have the end of semester 1 for our MA/MSc courses in Digital Film which I convene, with the exam boards and markings and dissertation supervisions, but I have also been organising a symposium in Poland for our Psychoanalysis in Our Time research group that I have been co-running with Ben Tyrer for 3 years now.  The initiative is funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers and our symposium in Sopot, with Professor Elizabeth Cowie being the keynote, will focus on the notion of the “Symptom” – in its broadest sense. The meeting will take place between 6-9th April just in time to get ready for our BAFTSS conference.  My own presentation will be a new piece of work – an African film noir which I have completed recently with my Zimbabwean collaborators.  The connection between this event and BAFTSS is that some members of our Psychoanalysis in Our Time network have formed a new BAFTSS SIG Psychoanalysis and Cinema, which will have its first outing during this year’s BAFTSS conference.  Our panel’s subject will indeed be film noir and we will present different takes on it.

Personally, I am most interested in the figure of femme fatale in film noir. ‘Oh not that again’ I hear you sigh but I want to explore traces of the femme fatale in other ‘nasty women’ (borrowing the famous Trump phrase about Hillary Clinton) in cinema and culture.  The femme fatale, both as a male fantasy and as a representation of female power, derives her endless appeal, I would argue, not only from her sexuality and beauty, but because she offers an exhilaratingly perverse way out of the rigid patriarchal systems of power and authority. She offers hope – of doing things differently, even if in a slightly (or very) ‘nasty’ way. Once upon a time, in the heyday of femme fatales in the 40’s, she might have been the sole figure fracturing male dominance in narratives presented by Hollywood. And now? Should we not consider Amy, of the Gone Girl, a descendant of the femme fatale in some way? With her beauty, her deviousness and the real crime that is committed by her, and not by the guy she so expertly frames for an imaginary crime? What about Sarah Polley’s mother of the Stories We Tell fame? And the filmmaker herself, too, in a way? Are their deceptions, their indiscretions, their beauty, as well as their ultimate creativity not part of the heritage of the femme fatale tradition? And then I ask myself how does a ‘nasty woman’ doubling as ‘femme fatale’ function in other cultures?  In Zimbabwe’s oral traditions there is figure of a woman who is mysteriously powerful, who can be good or bad, depending on what she feels about you… So there you have it– my new research project, in a nutshell.

Psychoanalysis in our time

Escape the movie

Sue Harris on On La La Land and the magic of the musical……

I have always loved musicals.  When I was a kid, and an aspiring ballroom dancer, I watched all the classics on our black and white television set on Sunday afternoons, thrilled by the songs and the dances, by the romantic storylines, and by the sheer soaring energy of stars like Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire and Judy Garland.  The breath-taking joys of colour and cinemascope, and an appreciation of how lightly the ‘simplicity’ of musicals was worn would come later, but from the earliest age, I was hooked. When Grease was released in 1978, I was one of those teenagers who saw it again and again at the cinema, and who would rush home from my dance class on Thursday evenings to see which number was dominating Top of the Pops that week.  It was my generation’s own newly-minted classic, and I am word perfect on every song to this day.

 

La La Land (Damian Chazelle) is clearly set to be this generation’s musical juggernaut. With the awards season barely underway, it has already taken all seven of the Golden Globes for which it was nominated, and has a record number of Academy Award (14) and BAFTA (11) nominations.  Two of the Academy Award nominations are for Best Original Song for (City of Stars and Audition: The Fools who Dream), putting the film in competition with itself in this category. Critics and popular journalists fresh from the 2016 festival circuit were initially unanimous in their praise for the film; but hype never escapes a backlash.  Social media this last month has been full of articles deploring the ‘whitespaining’ of jazz by Ryan Gosling’s musician character, the marginalising of black musician John Legend, the lack of ethnic diversity in on-location Los Angeles, and the less-than-Broadway level musical talents of Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Whether or not the film will endure as a classic remains to be seen: time will tell whether the appetite for La La Land speaks more to its originality and ambition to renew the musical genre than to its timely provision of a magical escape route from our increasingly apocalyptic post-Brexit, post-Trump era newsfeeds. In the meantime, the most eloquent commentary I have seen about the polarised attitudes to the film comes from Jose Arroyo, at Warwick University, and I’d encourage BAFTSS colleagues to seek out his always thoughtful ‘First Impressions’ film blog if they don’t already know it:

 

https://notesonfilm1.com/2017/01/26/la-la-land-damien-chazelle-usa-2016/

 

A few years ago, I was given the opportunity to write a BFI Classics book on one of my all-time favourite films, Vincente Minnelli’s sublime An American in Paris (1951). For me, this was a chance to bring together long-standing scholarly interests in star studies, in the craft of set design, and in the cultural imaginary of Paris in a serious study of a film I had always loved as a viewer rather than an academic. Like La La Land, An American in Paris was acclaimed on release as an outstanding musical, and it won an unprecedented six Academy Awards including Best Picture over such serious fare as A Streetcar Named Desire and A Place in the Sun.  Was it the best picture that year?  No.  Was it even the best example of a musical ever made? Probably not all things considered.  But its success confirmed that musicals could be ambitious, capture the public imagination, and succeed on their own terms. I am firmly in the camp that loves Chazelle’s contemporary homage to the pleasures of the big screen musical, and I can’t wait to see La La Land again.

Rajinder Dudrah on The Creative Multilingualism Project

The Creative Multilingualism Project

BAFTSS Executive Committee member Professor Rajinder Dudrah is a Co-Investigator on a major AHRC Open World Research Initiative consortia project led by the University of Oxford, entitled ‘Creative Multilingualism’.  This is a 4 year project that was awarded £3.9m and started in July 2016. The following is an outline of the project’s broader aims with links to the website and 2 forthcoming networking events in Oxford later this month. Both are free and open to all interested in the research, though booking in advance is required via Eventbrite.

Creative Multilingualism as Language-led research for the 21st century

Languages are currently valued mainly as practical tools for basic transactions in monoglot contexts. Yet language use is a creative act, and linguistic diversity forms part of the human condition. It shapes our cultural identities and facilitates cultural exchange. Languages evolve with the needs of individuals who acquire, use and transform linguistic resources in interaction with multiple intersecting communities. Languages change and mingle as cultural constellations shift, and linguistic diversity can turn new technical possibilities into communicative innovations. The purpose of the Creative Multilingualism research programme is to involve researchers from different disciplines, expertise in a wide range of languages, and partners from beyond academia in order to gain an enhanced understanding of the interdependence and interaction between linguistic diversity and creativity.

Creative Multilingualism as a response to the crisis in Modern Languages

The crisis of Modern Foreign Languages in UK schools has serious consequences for higher education, business, and diplomacy. Its roots lie in globalisation, the rise of English as global lingua franca, and expansion of electronic media dominated by English. It also marks the failure of UK policy-makers and the educational sectors to address these challenges with the necessary understanding, imagination, and unity of purpose.

This research programme exploits the crisis as an opportunity to engage stakeholders in a collaborative process of rethinking the identity of Modern Languages from the ground up. It seeks to dismantle assumed oppositions between ‘vocational’ and ‘academic’ purposes, and develop a concept of languages that responds to the varied needs of individuals and communities in the contemporary world.

Researchers from the universities of Oxford, Birmingham City, Cambridge, Reading, SOAS (London) and Pittsburgh will pool their expertise in over 40 languages to unlock the subject’s creative and connective potential by investigating how languages and creativity interact in processes involving more than one language.

As such the following two main research questions are at the centre of the programme’s investigation:

1) How does multilingualism stimulate creativity, what types of creativity are involved in

multilingualism, and how do they manifest themselves in multilingual processes?

2) How can the theory and practice of multilingual creativity strengthen take-up and learning of languages in schools and wider society, and enhance their perceived value?

Strand 4 Languages in the Creative Economy

As a Co-Investigator, Rajinder is leading one of the 7 strands entitled ‘Languages in the Creative Economy’ and is working closely with Professors Julie Curtis and Philip Bullock at Oxford, together with their strand cultural partners: Oxford Lieder, Punch Records and Sputnik Theatre Company.  Collectively they are working across the languages of Black British Patois and Creole languages, English, Hindi, Punjabi Russian Urdu. One of the key research questions of the strand is how can we capture the creative stimulus generated by multilingual processes in performance of music and drama?

Useful links

Project Website: http://www.creativeml.ox.ac.uk/

Strand 4 – Languages in the Creative Economy: http://www.creativeml.ox.ac.uk/research/creative-economy

Details of the free project event LinguaMania at the Ashmolean on Friday 27 January 2017: http://www.creativeml.ox.ac.uk/languages-creativity/exploring-multilingualism/introducing-linguamania-evening-multilingual

And free project launch conference ‘Languages and Creativity’ on Saturday 28 January 2017: http://www.creativeml.ox.ac.uk/about/events/conference-languages-creativity