Person:
Hagener, Malte

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

ORCID

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Professor für Medienwissenschaft, insbesondere Geschichte, Theorie und Ästhetik des Films, an der Philipps-Universität Marburg und geschäftsführender Direktor des Marburg Center for Digital Culture and Infrastructure (MCDCI)

Last Name

Hagener

First Name

Malte

Name

Filters

2012 - 20162
Reset filters

Settings

Subject: Film × Subject: cinema ×

Publications from this person:

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Article
    Even today there are people who think these harmless little books are dangerous: An interview with David Bordwell
    Hagener, Malte (2016) , S. 3-14
    After a distinguished career at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, David Bordwell remains active as a scholar, as a public speaker, and as a visitor at film festivals. With his partner Kristin Thompson he has not only written three important books – FILM ART: AN INTRODUCTION (1979; 10th edition 2010), probably the most widely used introductory film studies book; FILM HISTORY: AN INTRODUCTION; and THE CLASSICAL HOLLYWOOD CINEMA: FILM STYLE & MODE OF PRODUCTION UNTIL 1960 (with Janet Staiger, 1985) – but he also maintains the blog Observations on Film Art (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/), which includes reports from his ongoing research, discoveries at film festivals, and discussions of current issues in film culture. This email dialogue touches his career, the ‘paradigm wars’, and the current situation in which film culture is being reconfigured.
  • Review
    Cinema and experience – Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor W. Adorno
    Hagener, Malte (2012) , S. 333-337
    I first encountered the work of Miriam Hansen as a graduate student in the mid-1990s when her book BABEL AND BABYLON was the talk of the (at that time still fairly modest) film studies town – even though it was sitting somewhat uneasily on the fence. In fact, it was this position beyond the canonical that made the book so attractive in the first place. It did not fit into the raging debate of that time between psychosemiotics and neo-formalism, nor did it offer the (often too schematic and naive) way out within the cultural studies paradigm of empowering the individual or sub-culturally constituted groups.