notes
Introduction
1. Frampton, “The Invention without a Future,” 70.
2. Rodowick, “Dr. Strange Media,” 1400.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Frampton, “The Invention without a Future,” 74.
6. Baudrillard, “The Ecstasy of Communication,” 127; Virilio, “The Third Window,”
180. Both are quoted in Friedberg, Window Shopping, 203.
7. Dimendberg, “The Will to Motorization,” 107; Corrigan, A Cinema without
Walls, 146.
8. Although I mention these trajectories together in the context of “embodiment,”
I do not mean to suggest that these approaches can be equated with each other.
Each is quite different from the other, except in the way they move away from
psychoanalytic film theory’s focus on disembodiment. For examples of these
approaches, see in particular the work of Laura Kipnis, Vivian Sobchack, Linda
Williams, and Jackie Stacey.
9. At a recent conference entitled “The Art of Projection” (Berlin, October 2006),
Mary Ann Doane commented that her doubts about descriptions of embodied
and physically mimetic spectatorship stem from the fact that this is not how
she watches film. I have found her resistance to a wholesale embrace of “em-
bodied” spectatorship theory extremely suggestive as I have attempted to ar-
ticulate the ambivalent spectatorial position articulated by the car- crash films I
address herein.
10. See Baudrillard, “Two Essays: 1. Simulacra and Science Fiction. 2. Ballard’s
Crash”; Sobchack, “Baudrillard’s Obscenity.”
11. Self, Junk Mail, 348, quoted in Day, “Ballard and Baudrillard,” 290. On this same
issue, one might also look at Andrew Hultkrans’s “Body Work,” in which he
recounts a conversation he had with Ballard: “He said, ‘Well, it must be a cau-
tionary tale.’ And I said, ‘When you were writing the book, were you thinking: “I
Previous Page Next Page