This project underwent its own process of globalization as I researched its
local ideas; I want to thank those whose insights and contributions shaped
it, though I remain responsible for its unwieldy outlines. The temporality of
the work, too, was a challenge. I set out to write about twenty- first- century
women’s filmmaking during its first decade, but the cyclical nature of the
festival calendar is at odds with the forward progress of book writing; each
annual class of films reset priorities and posed challenges to an emerging
canon. This was precisely the phenomenon I wanted to write about—the
generation of buzz, the inflation of value, the crash, the rebalancing—as
it intersected with the politics of gender and location. But it took cycles
of revision to put this in perspective. I hope the book’s retakes and open-
endedness reflect something of the process of discovery that changes the
whole picture.
A project that encompasses so much bears the traces of many encounters.
I thank my colleagues for invitations to try out some of these ideas: Jane
Gaines, Duke University; Homay King, Bryn Mawr College; Jules Pidduck
and the research group at Concordia University; Suzanne Gauch, Temple
University; Mara Fortes, the Morelia Film Festival and Women in Film and
Television, Mexico City; Nicola Gentili, the University of Pennsylvania; Kath-
leen McHugh and the Center for the Study of Women at ucla; Domietta
Torlasco, Northwestern; Amelie Hastie and Shelley Stamp, University of
California, Santa Cruz; Anu Koivunen, University of Stockholm; Kristen
Fallica, University of Pittsburgh; Elena Gorfinkel, Tami Williams, and Pa-
trice Petro, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; and Karl Schoonover and
Rosalind Gault, University of Sussex. And thanks to Cynthia Chris and
David Gerstner, who solicited part of chapter 3 for Media Authorship.
Previous Page Next Page