Call For Papers: From the Grindhouse to the Arthouse: Films of Transgression, Exploitation, and Art Edited by John Cline and Robert G. Weiner In an essay published in Screen magazine some ten years ago, Jeffrey Sconce inaugurated the study of what he termed “paracinema.” Paracinema, according to Sconce, is a broad category of film that exists outside the mainstream of commercial filmmaking. For this project, we are looking for submissions that deal with a few particular issues under the umbrella of “paracinema.” Primarily, as the title of the volume indicates, we are interested in gathering together essays that deal with the “art of transgression” and the “transgressive in art.” More specifically, we hope that—taken together—the essays will form a cohesive argument about the relationship between the “high” and the “low” of cinematic expression as articulated through films that “push the envelope to the point of tearing it,” i.e. films with transgressive elements in them. These films are sometimes disturbing in tone, but part of the argument that we want this book to make is that they have a significant value both as cultural artifacts and as aesthetic objects. In other words, the drive-in screen andthe gallery wall are both up for grabs. Certain horror films could be considered “transgressive.” One could also put some experimental or avant-garde films in this category, the same as you could the work of a few “auteur”directors. Consequently, we believe that there is aesthetic legitimacy to befound in exploitation cinema. (For example the excellent cinematography and inventive narrative tropes in Ruggero Deoadato’s Cannibal Holocaust justifythis movie as an artistic achievement, despite dismissal by critics as a trashy, borderline snuff film.) Conversely, we also believe that the transgressive elements in art-house or experimental cinema shouldn’t immediately be considered separately from their low-born cohorts. This assertion is a lot like asking whether there’s a difference between I Spit on Your Grave and Salo—and then actually trying to find an answer. In each case, we hope that the essays will try to tackle the question of just what “transgression” is, and how it works in film. Overall, we would like submissions to work from a solid historical context and offer a mixture of both art-critical and cultural studies approaches. Though by no means exhaustive, the following is a list of some filmmakers to consider: *Erich von Stroheim/F.W. Murnau/Salvador Dali/Luis Bunuel/Jean Cocteau *Dwain Esper/Edgar G. Ulmer/Ida Lupino *Ed Wood/Herschell Gordon Lewis/Russ Meyer/Roger Corman/Jack Hill/Jesus Franco/John Waters/Wes Craven/Tobe Hooper/George Romero *Maya Deren/Kenneth Anger/Jack Smith/Ken Jacobs/Ron Rice/Andy Warhol/Paul Morrissey/Andy Milligan *Federico Fellini/Pier Paolo Pasolini/Rainer Maria Fassbinder/Werner Herzog *Mario Bava/Ruggero Deodato/Lucio Fulci/Dario Argento/ Umberto Lenzi/ Bruno Mattei/Joe D’Amato/ *The Vienna Aktionists/Kurt Kren/Otto Muehl/Herman Nitsch/Genesis P. Orridge and Psychic TV *Nick Zedd/Richard Kern/Beth and Scott B/Abel Ferrara/Lizzie Borden *Pete Walker/Alan Clarke/Guy Maddin/Peter Greenaway/Jane Campion/Michael Haneke/Gaspar Noe/ Jörg Buttgereit/ Jan Svankmajer/Monika Treut *Mary Harron/Kathryn Bigelow *Matthew Barney/Craig Baldwin *Takashii Miike/Eli Roth/Rob Zombie/Darren Lynn Bousman/ Although it’s safe to assume that this book’s final shape will be defined organically according to the submissions we receive, we have laid out somebroad guidelines and subject headings under which we hope to determine a submission’s acceptance. There are three major areas that we’d like to fill. Each of these sections is intended to be a (partially) discrete discussion, but they are also aimed at fulfilling the overall purpose of the project. The Aesthetic and Cultural Legitimacy of Grindhouse/Exploitation Cinema This section can include essays about a specific film or a single director’s style. It can also include pieces that survey a subgenre of exploitation film and offer a series of specific and general critiques about that subgenre. We are particularly interested in submissions that pay close attention to cinematography, editing, and art direction. In general, we’d like this section to run the gamut of exploitation films, from silents to straight-to-video.These can include “educational” scare films, sexploitation, biker films, rape-and-revenge films, psychedelic cash-ins, gialli, and all manner of horror flicks. There is an artistic value to many of these films that needs to be discussed and justified. After all, people didn’t watch Psycho the first time around because it was the work of a great “auteur,” and the DPs on The Sadistand Cockfighter didn’t go on to win Oscars for nothing. We also don't think it's much of a stretch to say that nearly all exploitation cinema is worth studying for its cultural significance. Papers that consider the social-historical context of exhibition and audience reception are strongly encouraged. Transgressive Elements in “Art-House” and Experimental/Avant-Garde Cinema In the book Hollywood Babylon, Kenneth Anger revels in imagining what kind of depraved strips of celluloid might have been left on the cutting room floor after the studio got a hold of Erich von Stroheim’s not-so-subtly S&M fantasy films. Since that time, films at the “high art” end of cinematic production have continued to test the cultural limits of acceptability and taste. But for both “art-house” movies (i.e. feature-length films with real budgets) and experimental/avant-garde films, the exact relationship between what they do with controversial material and how their plebian brethren handle the same material is rarely clear. In this section, we would like to see submissions that deal with both “art-house” directors like Pasolini, as well as the more strictly “underground” work of directors like Jack Smith. Specifically, we are looking for essays that focus on directors or individual films that explore their subject matter in a “transgressive” way. In addition, we would like to see essays that deal with the manner in which “art” cinema interacts with “low” culture. This could include topics as diverse as the “found” cinema of Craig Baldwin, the apprenticeship of art-house directors in B-movie production (i.e.Roger Corman’s protégés), and the exploration of mass culture in Kenneth Anger and Andy Warhol’s films. We would also like to see submissions that explore the process of legitimation that goes on for films shown in galleries, museums, and “high-brow” independent theaters. Alternately, but in keeping with our interest in social-historical context, we are interested in seeing articles that examine how “art-house” films coexisted—sometimes in the same theater—with exploitation fare. Transgression in Documentaries and “Realistic” Educational/Scare Films Michael Haneke has said that, contra Godard, “A feature film is 24 lies per second.” Pithy as that quote may be, the relationship between “transgressive” cinema and “reality” is not quite so simple. In this section, we would like to see submissions that interrogate the relationship between cinematic transgression and “real” life. Essentially, we see approaches to this subject as falling into one of two categories. The first is analyses of films that are marketed as documentaries. These can include films that are “legitimate” or award-winning, but their subject matter should explore some aspect of transgression. This can also include films that might be described as “Mondo” movies, or films that assemble shocking or bizarre footage (sometimes documentary, sometimes simply edited segments from films like the Italian “cannibal” cycle) for exploitation purposes. The infamous Faces of Death series are a good example of these films. The second category is a bit more fluid. Essentially, what we’re looking for are papers that examine exploitation films that—although they are clearly fictional narratives—purport to be “representative” or “recreations” of real events or sociologicalproblems. These films typically couch their exploitive purposes in a moral message, and they can include everything from the barnstorming sex-and-drug “education” films of the ‘30s and ‘40s to the juvenile delinquent scare films of the ‘50s, and from the alarmist psychedelics-and-motorcycles ‘60s counterculture movies to the pseudo-educational Scandinavianpornographic films of the 1970s. Some of these films may, like the “Guinea Pig” series, blur the line between fiction and reality so thoroughly that audience isconvinced that what they’ve just seen requires notifying the police. In general, this section probably requires the most explicit use of a cultural studies approach, since the contrast between the true and the titillating is so dependent on the audience. However, critiques on aesthetic grounds are strongly encouraged. By covering a long historical sweep of filmmaking, examining a broad variety of films, and utilizing a number of different methodological approaches, we hope that the articles we accept for this project will constitute a compelling volume and a significant contribution to the scholarship in this still-developing field. Submissions will be peer reviewed. Please send abstracts of 250-500 words to the editors by October 31st. John Cline: The University of Texas [log in to unmask] Rob Weiner: [log in to unmask] ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]