ABSTRACT
This paper examines the political effects of the representation of historical paintings in film. It contends that the inclusion of this ‘older’ form, painting, and of the world associated with its popularity brings a mythological past to bear on contemporary philosophical and political issues in a novel and complex manner. Using the formal qualities of film, like montage and close-up, film makers can reimage and reimagine the place and role of painted works within the contemporary worlds in which the films are set. The interruption of one world into the other, the painted past into the photoreal present or future, uncovers new continuities and makes the distant past a matter of concern for the problems of the present. Using the philosophy and theories of Jacques Rancière, Bonnie Honig, Robert Pippin, and Roland Barthes, this article examines the representation of painting in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972) and the collaborative film Germany in Autumn (1978).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. I am not here trying to suggest that cinema is totally analogous to written or spoken language, a problem explored by, for example, Christian Metz (“The Cinema: Language or Language System?”), but rather that cinema possesses the capability of offering its own unique form of description.
2. Although in this article I am exclusively looking at how cinematic ekphrasis operates mythologically, I want to leave open the possibility that this form of ekphrasis might be imagined to have other effects and consequences.
3. This notion is explored both in Miriam Hansen’s piece, which I am analysing here, and in Blumenthal-Barby (Citation2007).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Dan McFadden
Dan McFadden is a doctoral candidate in Cinema Studies at the University of Toronto. His work looks at the relationship between media and philosophy, with a particular interest in politics and phenomenology.