Cognitive Film Theory: Bibliographical Update

Back in January, when I posted an bibliographical update of works published on cognitive film theory, I was asked if I would do an update of the larger bibliography of research in this area that appeared the year before. Six months later, I have finally done this, and the link below will take you to the new version as a pdf file:

Nick Redfern – CognitiveFilmTheoryBibliography2-04

This bibliography now contains 425 different items, which means that 70 new references (highlighted in red) have been added since the old version was put on-line. By ‘new’ I mean only that items did not appear in the earlier version, and though many of these are from as recent as 2010 some are much older. Again, this bibliography makes no claim to being exhaustive, but what is there should be accurate. (I’ve also tidied up a few things since the last version but these were very minor).

I haven’t included any references from 2011 becasue the year isn’t over yet, and you’ll just have to wait until next January for that update.

One area that I have also left to one side, but which could make a very large contribution to the bibliography is research on cognition that uses film clips to explore cognition but which is not related to film studies (i.e. the research doesn’t necessarily use commerical films). One area of considerable research using film in this way are studies of ‘affective style,’ and a handful of references with links to papers by Richard J Davidson are listed below as examples. I may decide at a later date to add such research to the bibliography, but for the time being it remains in limbo.

Davidson RJ 1994 Asymmetric brain function, affective style, and psychopathology: the role of early experience and plasticity, Development and Psychology 6: 741-758.

Davidson RJ 1998 Anterior electrophysiological asymmetries, emotion, and depression: conceptual and methodological conundrums, Psychophyisiology 35: 607-614.

Davidson RJ 2003 Darwin and the neural bases of emotion and affective style, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1000: 316-336.

Davidson RJ2004 Well-being and affective style: neural substrates and biobehavioural correlates, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 359 (1449): 1395-1411.

About Nick Redfern

I am an independent academic with over 15 years experience teaching film in higher education in the UK. I have taught film analysis, film industries, film theories, film history, science fiction at Manchester Metropolitan University, the University of Central Lancashire, and Leeds Trinity University, where I was programme leader for film from 2016 to 2020. My research interests include computational film analysis, horror cinema, sound design, science fiction, film trailers, British cinema, and regional film cultures.

Posted on June 9, 2011, in Cognitive Film Theory, Emotion, Film Studies, Film Theory and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Is there a reason the work from the French Filmology movement (1946-1961)? Is it simply because much if not all remains untranslated into English or is it that the majority does not use commercial film as the basis of its research?

  2. Nick Redfern

    No there’s no particular reason for it. The bibliography isn’t that systematic – it is mainly stuff that I came across and started to put in a list a few years ago, and when ever I find something new I add it to the list. Every so often I post an update, but beyond that there is no claim to being exhaustive. It is principally a method of keeping track of references without having several thousand pdf files clogging up my harddrive. (Note that this does not work in practice).

    It is certainly true that there isn’t much of this stuff in English. Gilbert Cohen-Seat’s work on perception and cinema, for example, isn’t widely available, and this may be a factor in why I don’t come across filmology references day to day.

    A more interesting question is why there are no (or so few) translations, whereas we have lots of translations of Christian Metz, for example. Metz has had a sigifnicant impact on English-language film studies but Cohen-Seat has not. References to the former are legion, while references to the latter are much rarer. Why did translators focus their efforts on Metz, rather than Cohen-Seat? Perhaps because he was more contemporary with the emergence of film studies in the US and the UK, whereas filmology was from a generation earlier. Perhaps they could not understand and/or translate the science.

  1. Pingback: Pre-film studies research on film « Research into film

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: