Page 220 - Cyberculture and New Media

Tony Richards 211
______________________________________________________________

from a number of angles including the ludic angle influential with Media 2.0
scholars.
11
Rehak, B. ‘Playing at Being’ in The Video Game Theory Reader ed. M.J.P.
Wolf & B. Perrron (Routledge, 2003) New York and London. p103-127.
12
Of course the use of the phrase ‘hey you!’ comes from Althusser in relation
to the multitude of ideological state apparatuses but here interpellation makes
us think of the use of subject positioning by writers of the cinematic
apparatus such as Baudry, Comoli, Mulvey and Heath as well as others
centering around the journals Screen and Cinetracts in the 1970’s and 80s.
For the interested reader, the every edition of Cinetracts is available in pdf
format at the following website: http://dl.lib.brown.edu/cinetracts/
13
MacCabe, C., ‘Realism and the Cinema: Notes on Some Brechtian Theses’
in Popular Television and Film, Tony Bennett (ed), BFI Press, London, 1981.
14
Rehak op cit p.119.
15
Indeed we could open up a whole can of worms here in the use of diegesis
in any sense or conjoining of terms, difficult as it would be to throw it away;
thus reducing the open-closed of the game to the openness and thus entire
lack of diegesis of the internet, for example. We use ‘extra-diegetic’ here
heuristically to denote the distance of the game from the diegesis of the film
(and in the absence of a better concept) but extra-diegetic has been utilized
rightly to refer to things like titles or peacocks in Eisenstein’s ‘October’
which exist outside their respective story-spaces. This can may be worth
opening however to expose the insurmountable narrative problems of the
game. We can only mount an insubstantial challenge here ourselves.
16
See Dayan D., ‘The Tutor Code of Classical Cinema’ in Movies and
Methods, Bill Nichols (ed), University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1976, pp.438-450, as well as the chapter ‘On Suture’ in Heath, S.,
Questions of Cinema, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1981, pp76-112.
17
For the suturing of the spectator “completed” within the film’s shot-
reverse-shot takes the third-person ‘juxtapositions’ of the film’s dominant
specularity and enacts for the audience a misrecognition of first-person
identity. For more on misrecognition see Rosen, P., Narrative, Apparatus,
Ideology, Columbia University Press, New York, 1986. Also see the two
entries immediately below.
18
Doane M.A.,’Misrecognition and Identity’in Explorations in Film Theory:
Selected Essays from Cinetracts, Ron Burnett (ed), Indiana University Press,
Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1991, p15-25.
19
See Metz, C., The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1986.
20
Doane op. cit. p.19
21
Rehak, op. cit. p121.