Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:

Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)

MA AAS course: AAS 4 (6 credit points)
M.ED course: AmerA in module Advanced Literature and Culture (5 credit points)
BA course: AmerA in module Advanced Literature and Culture (5 credit points)

Fri: 12.00-14.00 Dr. Shane Denson
Room: 1502, 609 Office Hour: Tue 12.00-13.00, Room 627
shane.denson@engsem.uni-hannover.de


Course Description:
In this seminar, we will try to come to terms with twenty-first century motion pictures by thinking through a
variety of concepts and theoretical approaches designed to explain their relations and differences from the
cinema of the previous century. We will consider the impact of digital technologies on film, think about the
cultural contexts and aesthetic practices of contemporary motion pictures, and try to understand the
experiential dimensions of spectatorship in today's altered viewing conditions. In addition to preparing weekly
readings, students will be expected to view a variety of films prior to each class meeting.

Course Themes and Objectives:
In this course, we set out from the apparent chaos that contemporary cinema often presents to us: the
seemingly incoherent and unmotivated camerawork and editing, for example, by which many action films of
the twenty-first century mark their departure from the classical norms of Hollywood-style narration and
formal construction. From here, we seek to make sense more generally of cinemas transformation in terms of
new technologies and techniques (e.g. digital imaging processes, nonlinear editing, and attendant editing
styles), in terms of new modes of cinematic distribution and reception (e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, and streaming
services, HD TVs, smartphones, and tablet computers, but also IMAX 3-D and similar transformations of the big
screen), in terms of non-classical narrative styles (e.g. recursive, database-like, non-linear, and even non-
sequitur forms of storytelling), and in terms of broader phenomenological and environmental shifts that inform
our experience, our embodiment, and our subjectivity in the digital era.
Several key concepts will help to orient our thinking about twenty-first century cinema and its relation to
earlier cinematic modes. The first is chaos cinema, a term which Matthias Stork popularized in a compelling
set of video essays focused particularly on recent action cinema; beyond this context, however, Storks notion
of chaos resonates with the feelings and fears of many critics and theorists in the face of digital-era cinema.
This broader perception of chaos is sometimes traced back to the digital unmooring of images from the
indexical referents to which photographic films remained tied; on this basis, the somewhat oxymoronic term
digital film is often linked to an even more unsettling, because more basic, sense of chaos: according to some
critics, the digital (and the moving images it produces and supports) is correlated with a sweeping
transformation of human society and subjectivity itself. On the other hand, though, not all critics are similarly
alarmed by digital-era chaos. David Bordwells concept of intensified continuity effectively denies the radical
stylistic break announced in Storks analysis; Bordwell sees the newer films as perhaps faster and even more
hectic than classical Hollywood fare, but basically constructed according to principles of classical continuity
just intensified. By way of contrast, Steven Shaviros notion of post-continuity developed in the context of
his analysis of post-cinematic affect provides another view of contemporary moving image culture, one
which links formal and aesthetic transformations not only with new technologies but also with broader social,
cultural, and economic changes underway right now.
As we think through these and related concepts, we will engage a variety of recent movies from formal,
phenomenological, affective, cultural, and environmental perspectives. We will seek to understand whether a
radical change has taken place in recent cinema, to assess what its significance might be, and in this way begin
to think through the implications of and for our viewing habits in the twenty-first century.



Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


2
Please register at StudIP for this class. Handouts and additional
course material will be posted there.

Required Reading:
Shaviro, Steven. Post-Cinematic Affect. Winchester: Zer0 Books, 2010.
Additional readings (listed in the course schedule) will be made available via Stud.IP.

Recommended Reading:
For general reference, I recommend buying Timothy Corrigan and Patricia White, The Film Experience: An
Introduction. Third Edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2012), and Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing
about Film. Eighth Edition (Boston: Pearson, 2011). Beyond these more basic texts, Film Theory and Criticism, a
widely cited anthology edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, collects a wide range of film-theoretical
writings. Additional suggestions are indicated in the course schedule.

Viewings:
Students are responsible for viewing the assigned films and videos prior to each class meeting. I encourage you
to view the films in groups and to discuss what you see, if possible. A room has been reserved for this purpose
immediately following our class sessions (Fridays, 2:00-4:00 pm, room 613). There you will have the
opportunity to view the film for the coming week. You are not required to attend these screenings, but if you
cannot make it you will have to make other arrangements to view the film on your own. Please note that the
English department has only one copy of each film, so do not assume that you will be able to borrow it for
home viewing. Please plan ahead and make arrangements early if you need to purchase or rent DVDs or view
the films via an online streaming service. It is essential that you have viewed the films prior to the respective
class sessions.

Course Requirements / Studienleistungen:
1. Regular attendance and preparation for class.
2. No more than one failed reading/viewing quiz.
3. Short written responses to the reading and viewing assignments each week (400-800 words). Questions or
prompts will be announced in class the week prior. Please be prepared to be called upon to read your
response aloud. You are allowed no more than one missing assignment; late assignments (i.e. assignments
received after class and up to 7 days afterwards) will count as half-complete (i.e., you are allowed no more
than two late assignments). Assignments received more than 7 days late will not be accepted.

Final Paper / Prfungsleistung:
Term paper (5000 words), to be submitted by March 10, 2014. As a prerequisite for the final paper, a 1-2 page
proposal will be due in class on January 10, 2014. In your proposal, you should outline the focus or object of
your analysis, explain the specific method(s) of analysis, state your reasons for choosing this approach to the
topic, and formulate a tentative thesis statement. The final paper should be written in a scholarly format, with
a complete bibliography, and should consist of the following:
1. A brief introduction outlining your topic and stating as clearly and precisely as possible the thesis of
your paper. This section should usually be no more than one paragraph long.


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


3
2. A short description of the film(s) or other object(s) of your analysis. Here you should provide any essential
background that might be needed for the reader to understand your analysis. You should assume an
educated reader, who is familiar with film and media studies but perhaps has not seen the films (or other
media) being discussed in your paper. If it is not relevant to your argument, do not engage in lengthy plot
summaries. On the other hand, make sure that the reader has enough context (narrative or otherwise) to
understand the more detailed analysis that follows. Overall, in this section you must find the right balance,
which you can do by considering whether each detail is truly relevant and informative with respect to your
argument. Anthropologist and cybernetician Gregory Bateson defined information as a difference which
makes a difference, and you can use this formula as a test for determining which details truly belong in
this section. If, for example, providing a plot summary or details about production costs and box-office
revenues will make a difference with respect to your thesis (i.e. if a reader needs to know these things in
order to process your argument), then this is clearly relevant and belongs in this section; on the other hand,
if it doesnt make a difference to your argument, then it probably doesnt belong here. This section should
usually be no more than 2-3 paragraphs long.
3. An in-depth analysis of the film(s) or other media object(s) under consideration. Your analysis should be
interpretive and argumentative in nature. In other words, it is not enough simply to describe what you see
on screen; you need also to persuade the reader that this is important, and that it has certain implications
that may not be obvious at first glance. (If something is overly obvious, then its probably not very
informative and certainly not worth arguing.) You are not just describing things but providing a reading of
them. Keep in mind that the analysis you provide in this section constitutes the main support for your thesis
statement. Your analysis is the argumentation that you offer to back up your thesis, while the thesis
statement should be seen as the logical conclusion of your argument/analysis. In other words, while you
have already told the reader what your thesis statement is (in the introduction), it is through your analysis
that you must now prove that your thesis is correct or plausible. Ideally, after reading the analysis in this
section, the reader should see your thesis statement as the logical outcome. Keeping this in mind as the test
of success, you again need to ensure that your analysis is relevant and informative with respect to your
thesis statement (if it doesnt make a difference with regard to your thesis, then it can hardly prove it). In
addition, you need to make sure that your analysis/argument proves your thesis sufficiently. This is a
question of the scope of your thesis, and of your ability to prove it through your interpretive analysis. Have
you claimed too much in your thesis? Not enough? Ideally, there should be a perfect match between what
you claim in your thesis and what your analysis actually demonstrates. When writing this section, you may
find that you have to adjust your thesis (and re-write your introduction accordingly) or look for stronger
arguments to support it. This should be the longest section of your paper.
4. A brief conclusion. Try not to be too mechanical in summarizing and repeating what youve written, but do
make sure that the conclusion demonstrates the papers overall relevance and coherence. For example, you
might return to a detail mentioned in the introduction and use it to highlight the significance of your
argument: maybe the detail seemed rather unimportant before but has a very different meaning in the light
of your analysis or interpretation. Foregrounding the transformative effect of your argument (i.e. the fact
that it makes us see things differently) is a good way to demonstrate the overall importance of your paper,
and the device of returning in the end to something mentioned at the beginning is an effective way of
giving your paper closure. Obviously, though, it is not the only way to approach the conclusion. You might
also demonstrate the relevance of your argument by opening up the scope even farther and considering the
questions that your thesis raises for other areas of inquiry. Does your analysis suggest alternative readings
for other films or media objects? Does it suggest the need to re-think various assumptions about cinema,
about a given genre, or about some other aspect of media inquiry? However you decide to approach it, the
point of the conclusion, generally speaking, is to take a step back from arguing for your thesis (you are
supposed to be finished doing that by now) and to reflect, on a quasi meta-level, about the overall
significance of your argument/thesis. This section should normally be one paragraph in length.
5. A full list of works cited, according to MLA style.


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


4
In addition to the above guidelines, please check the 'Richtlinien Literatur-/ Kulturwissenschaft: Hausarbeiten'
and the English Department stylesheet at http://www.engsem.uni-hannover.de/studienformulare_fueba.html
when conceiving and writing your paper.

Course Schedule:
18.10. Introduction: Chaos Cinema?
VIDEO ESSAY: Matthias Stork, Chaos Cinema. (In-class video screening)
25.10. Digital Images, Post-Classical Editing
TEXTS: Lev Manovich, What is Digital Cinema?; David Bordwell, Intensified Continuity: Visual
Style in Contemporary American Film.
FILM: Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007)
[Suggestions for further study: Andr Bazin, The Ontology of the Photographic Image. / David
Bordwell, Intensified Continuity Revisited. / Michael Allen, The Impact of Digital Technologies
on Film Aesthetics. / Anne Friedberg, The End of Cinema: Multimedia and Technological Change.
/ W. J. T. Mitchell, Realism and the Digital Image. / Friedrich Kittler, Computer Graphics: A
Semi-Technical Introduction. / Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media. / Shane Denson,
Discorrelated Images: Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect, and Speculative Realism. / FILMS:
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Michael Bay, 2009) / Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Michael
Bay, 2011) / Domino (Tony Scott, 2005) / Dj Vu (Tony Scott, 2006) / The Taking of Pelham 123
(2009)]
01.11. Phenomenological Perspectives: Bodies in Electronic Spaces
TEXT: Vivian Sobchack, The Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Photographic, Cinematic, and
Electronic Presence.
FILM: Run Lola Run (Lola Rennt; Tom Tykwer, 1998)
[Suggestions for further study: Vivian Sobchack, The Address of the Eye. / Mark B. N. Hansen,
Bodies in Code. / Margit Grieb, Run Lara Run. / FILMS: Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000) /
Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, 2005) / The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2008) / The
Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2012) / Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010) / Being John
Malkovich (Spike Jonez, 1999) / Cloud Atlas (The Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer)]
08.11. Post-Phenomenological Perspectives: Brains in Digital
Times
TEXT: Thomas Elsaesser and Malte Hagener, Cinema as Brain: Mind and Body. Chapter 7 of Film
Theory: An Introduction through the Senses (149-169).
FILM: Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
[Suggestions for further study: Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1 and Cinema 2. / D. N. Rodowick, Gilles
Deleuzes Time Machine. / Maurizio Lazzarato, Machines to Crystallize Time. / Mark B. N. Hansen,
New Philosophy for New Media. / Mark B. N. Hansen, Ubiquitous Sensation. / Warren Buckland,
ed., Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in Contemporary Cinema. / FILMS: Twin Peaks: Fire Walk
with Me (David Lynch, 1992) / Lost Highway (David Lynch, 1997) / Inland Empire (David Lynch,
2006) / The Sixth Sense (M. Night Shyamalan, 1999) / The Others (Alejandro Amenbar, 2001) /
2046 (Wong Kar Wai, 2004) / In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar Wai, 2000) / Oldboy (Park Chan-
wook, 2003) / TELEVISION: Twin Peaks (Mark Frost and David Lynch, 1990-1991)]
15.11. Bodies and Brains in Bullet Time
TEXT: Darren Tofts, Truth at Twelve Thousand Frames per Second: The Matrix and Time-Image
Cinema.


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


5
FILM: The Matrix (The Wachowskis, 1999)
[Suggestions for further study: Henry Jenkins, Searching for the Origami Unicorn: The Matrix and
Transmedia Storytelling. (Chapter 3 of Convergence Culture). / Wanda Strauven, ed., The Cinema
of Attractions Reloaded. / Shane Denson and Andreas Jahn-Sudmann, Digital Seriality: On the
Serial Aesthetics and Practices of Digital Games. / FILMS: The Matrix Reloaded (The Wachowskis,
2003) / Matrix Revolutions (The Wachowskis, 2003) / The Animatrix (Peter Chung, Andrew R.
Jones, Yoshiaki Kawajiri, Takeshi Koike, Mahiro Maeda, Kji Morimoto, Shinichir Watanabe, 2003)
/ GAMES: Enter the Matrix (Atari, 2003) / The Matrix Online (Sega/Warner Bros., 2005) / Max
Payne (Rockstar Games, 2001) / Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne (Rockstar Games, 2003) / Max
Payne 3 (Rockstar Games, 2012)]
Digital Animation (Extra session, 2:00-4:00 pm!)
TEXT: J. P. Telotte, The Pixar Reality: Digital Space and Beyond. Chapter 9 in Animating Space:
From Mickey to WALL-E (203-221).
FILM: WALL-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008)
[Suggestions for further study: J. P. Telotte, Digital Effects Animation and the New Hybrid
Cinema (Chapter 10 in Animating Space). / Shane Denson, WALL-E vs. Chaos (Cinema). / Alan
Ackerman, The Spirit of Toys: Resurrection and Redemption in Toy Story and Toy Story 2. / Livia
Monnet, A-Life and the Uncanny in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. / FILMS: Toy Story (John
Lasseter, 1995) / Toy Story 2 (John Lasseter, 1999) / Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010) / Monsters, Inc.
(Pete Docter, 2001) / Finding Nemo (Andrew Stanton, 2003) / The Incredibles (Brad Bird, 2004) /
Cars (John Lasseter, 2006) / Cars 2 (John Lasseter, 2011) / Madagascar (Eric Darnell and Tom
McGrath, 2005) / Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (Hironobu Sakaguchi and Motonori Sakakibara,
2001)]
22.11. No class
Attending Dissolutions of Perspective in Post Cinema conference, Freie Universitt Berlin.
29.11. Changing Conditions, Persistent Ideas, Historical
Revisions of Cinema
TEXT: Francesco Casetti, The Relocation of Cinema.
FILM: Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011)
[Suggestions for further study: Erkki Huhtamo and Jussi Parikka, eds., Media Archaeology:
Approaches, Applications, and Implications. / Jussi Parikka, What is Media Archaeology? / Jay David
Bolter and Richard Grusin, Remediation. / Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of
Technical Reproduction. / FILMS: The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011) / Midnight in Paris
(Woody Allen, 2011) / The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011) / War Horse (Steven Spielberg, 2011)
/ The Help (Tate Taylor, 2011)]
06.12. Post-Cinema 1: Posthuman Celebrity and the Digital Music
Video
TEXT: Steven Shaviro, Post-Cinematic Affect, Chapters 1 & 2
MUSIC VIDEOS: Corporate Cannibal (Grace Jones, dir. Nick Hooker, 2008), Papparazzi (Lady
Gaga, director: Jonas kerlund, 2009), Telephone (Lady Gaga feat. Beyonc, director: Jonas
kerlund, 2010)
[Suggestions for further study: Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual. / Gilles Deleuze, Postscript
on the Societies of Control / Clare Birchall, Gary Hall, and Peter Woodbridge, Deleuzes Postscript
on the Societies of Control. / Shane Denson, Object-Oriented Gaga: Theorizing the Nonhuman
Mediation of Twenty-First Century Celebrity. / P. David Marshall, ed., The Celebrity Culture
Reader.]


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


6
13.12. Post-Cinema 2: Mediating the Flows of Neoliberal
Globalization
TEXT: Steven Shaviro, Post-Cinematic Affect, Chapter 3
FILM: Boarding Gate (Olivier Assayas, 2007)
[Suggestions for further study: Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late
Capitalism. / Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society. / Yann Moulier Boutang, Cognitive
Capitalism. / Maurizio Lazzarato, Immaterial Labor. / David Golumbia, High-Frequency Trading:
Networks of Wealth and the Concentration of Power. / Mark B. N. Hansen, New Media. /
Matteo Pasquinelli, Googles PageRank Algorithm: A Diagram of Cognitive Capitalism and the
Rentier of the Common Intellect. / Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2. / FILMS: Margin Call (J. C. Chandor,
2011) / Demonlover (Olivier Assayas, 2002) / Clean (Olivier Assayas, 2004)]
20.12. Post-Cinema 3: Hypermediation, Self-Surveillance, Futurity
TEXT: Steven Shaviro, Post-Cinematic Affect, Chapter 4
FILM: Southland Tales (Richard Kelly, 2006)
[Suggestions for further study: Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, Remediation. / Richard Grusin,
DVDs, Video Games, and the Cinema of Interactions. / Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture. /
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish. / Jamais Cascio, The Rise of the Participatory Panopticon.
/ Stephen Prince, True Lies: Perceptual Realism, Digital Images, and Film Theory. / Lev Manovich,
The Language of New Media. / Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism. / Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello,
The New Spirit of Capitalism. / FILMS: Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001) / Minority Report (Steven
Spielberg, 2002)]
10.01. Post-Cinema 4: Gamespaces
TEXT: Steven Shaviro, Post-Cinematic Affect, Chapters 5 & 6
FILM: Gamer (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, 2009)
[Suggestions for further study: Alexander Galloway, Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. /
McKenzie Wark, Gamer Theory. / Shane Denson and Andreas Jahn-Sudmann, Digital Seriality: On
the Serial Aesthetics and Practices of Digital Games. / Lorrie Palmer, Cranked Masculinity:
Hypermediation in Digital Action Cinema. / FILMS: Crank (Neveldine & Taylor, 2006) / Crank: High
Voltage (Neveldine & Taylor, 2009) / Ghostrider: Spirit of Vengeance (Neveldine & Taylor, 2012) /
TRON: Legacy (Joseph Kosinski, 2010) / Wreck-It Ralph (Rich Moore, 2012)]
17.01. The Ghostly Agencies of Post-Cinematic Horror
TEXT: Therese Grisham, Julia Leyda, Nicholas Rombes, and Steven Shaviro, Roundtable Discussion
on the Post-Cinematic in Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2.
FILM: Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 2007)
[Suggestions for further study: Kevin J. Wetmore, Jr., Post-9/11 Horror in American Cinema. /
FILMS: The Blair Witch Project (Eduardo Snchez and Daniel Myrick, 1999) / Paranormal Activity 2
(Tod Williams, 2010) / Paranormal Activity 3 (Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, 2011) / Paranormal
Activity 4 (Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, 2012) / Quarantine (John Erick Dowdle, 2008) /
Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008) / Hostel (Eli Roth, 2005) and sequels / Saw (James Wan, 2004) and
sequels / Scary Movie (Keenen Ivory Wayans, 2000) and sequels].
24.01. Alien Perspectives
TEXT: Shane Denson, Therese Grisham, and Julia Leyda, Post-Cinematic Affect: Post-Continuity,
the Irrational Camera, Thoughts on 3D.
FILM: District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009)


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


7
[Suggestions for further study: Shane Denson, Crazy Cameras, Discorrelated Images, and the
Post-Perceptual Mediation of Post-Cinematic Affect. / FILMS: Alive in Joburg (short film, Neill
Blomkamp, 2006) / Wikus and Charlize (short film, Sharlto Copley, 2010) / Elysium (Neill
Blomkamp, 2013) / Another Earth (Mike Cahill, 2011), After Earth (M. Night Shyamalan, 2013) /
Oblivion (Joseph Kosinski, 2013)]
31.01. Ecological Perspectives, or: The End of the World
TEXT: Adrian Ivakhiv, Terra and Trauma: The Geopolitics of the Real (excerpts: 275-294, 311-
325).
FILM: Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011).
[Suggestions for further study: Steven Shaviro, Melancholia or, the Romantic Anti-Sublime. /
Stephen Rust, Salma Monani, and Sean Cubitt, eds. Ecocinema Theory and Practice. / FILMS:
Avatar (James Cameron, 2009) / The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011) / WALL-E (Andrew
Stanton, 2008) / The Cave of Forgotten Dreams (Werner Herzog, 2010) / Fast Food Nation (Richard
Linklater, 2006) / Darwins Nightmare (Hubert Saupert, 2004) / The Cove (Louie Psihoyos, 2009) /
An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim, 2006)]

Bibliography
Ackerman, Alan. The Spirit of Toys: Resurrection and Redemption in Toy Story and Toy Story 2. University of
Toronto Quarterly 74.4 (2005): 895-912.
Allen, Michael. The Impact of Digital Technologies on Film Aesthetics. Film Theory and Criticism. 7
th
ed. Eds.
Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 824-833.
Bazin, Andr. The Ontology of the Photographic Image. Trans. Hugh Gray. Film Quarterly 13.4 (Summer, 1960):
4-9.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproduction. Trans. Harry Zohn. Illuminations. Ed.
Hannah Arendt. New York: Schocken, 1968. 217-251.
_____. The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility and Other Writings on Media. Eds. Michael
W. Jennings, Brigid Doherty, and Thomas Y. Levin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008.
Birchall, Clare, Gary Hall, and Peter Woodbridge. Deleuzes Postscript on the Societies of Control. Video essay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIus7lm_ZK0.
Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. Gregory Elliott. New York: Verso, 2007.
Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
Bordwell, David. Intensified Continuity: Visual Style in Contemporary American Film. Film Quarterly 55.3
(2002): 16-28.
_____. Intensified Continuity Revisited. Observations on Film Art. Blog post, May 27, 2007:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2007/05/27/intensified-continuity-revisited/.
Bordwell, David, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson. Classical Hollywood Cinema. New York: Columbia UP,
1985.
Braudy, Leo, and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism. 7
th
ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
Buckland, Warren, ed. Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in Contemporary Cinema. Malden: Blackwell, 2009.
Cascio, Jamais. The Rise of the Participatory Panopticon. Worldchanging (blog). May 4, 2005:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002651.html.
Casetti, Francesco. The Relocation of Cinema. NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies 2 (2012):
http://www.necsus-ejms.org/the-relocation-of-cinema/.
Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society. 2
nd
ed. Vol. 1: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and
Culture. Cambridge: Blackwell, 2000.
Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong, and Thomas Keenan, eds. New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader. New
York: Routledge, 2006.
Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. 8
th
ed. London: Pearson, 2012.
Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. The Film Experience: An Introduction. 3
rd
ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins,
2012.


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


8
Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. Minneapolis:
U of Minnesota P, 1986.
_____. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P,
1989.
_____. Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 59 (1992): 3-7.
Denson, Shane. Crazy Cameras, Discorrelated Images, and the Post-Perceptual Mediation of Post-Cinematic
Affect. Talk presented at the Society for Cinema and Media Studies 2013 53
rd
annual conference. 6-10
March 2013, Chicago. Online: http://wp.me/p1xJM8-pX.
_____. Discorrelated Images: Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect, and Speculative Realism. Talk delivered
as part of the Initiative for Interdisciplinary Media Researchs film series Chaos Cinema? at the Leibniz
University of Hannover. June 21, 2012, Hannover. Online: http://wp.me/p1xJM8-hs.
_____. Object-Oriented Gaga: Theorizing the Nonhuman Mediation of Twenty-First Century Celebrity. O-
Zone: A Journal of Object-Oriented Studies. Video: http://o-zone-journal.org/oo-
frequency/2012/11/27/object-oriented-gaga-by-shane-denson
_____. WALL-E vs. Chaos (Cinema). Talk delivered as part of the Initiative for Interdisciplinary Media
Researchs film series Chaos Cinema? at the Leibniz University of Hannover. July 19, 2012, Hannover.
Online: http://wp.me/p1xJM8-iD.
Denson, Shane, and Andreas Jahn-Sudmann. Digital Seriality: On the Serial Aesthetics and Practices of Digital
Games. Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture 7.1 (2013): forthcoming.
Denson, Shane, Therese Grisham, and Julia Leyda. Post-Cinematic Affect: Post-Continuity, the Irrational
Camera, Thoughts on 3D. La Furia Umana 14 (2012): http://bit.ly/T3Q5rs. Also available here:
http://www.academia.edu/1993403/_Post-Cinematic_Affect_Post-
Continuity_the_Irrational_Camera_Thoughts_on_3D_.
Elsaesser, Thomas. Early Film History and Multimedia: An Archaeology of Possible Futures? New Media, Old
Media: A History and Theory Reader. Eds. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Thomas Keenan. New York: Routledge,
2006. 13-25.
Elsaesser, Thomas, and Malte Hagener. Film Theory: An Introduction through the Senses. New York: Routledge,
2010.
Fisher, Mark. Capitalist Realism. London: Zero Books, 2009.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage, 1995.
Friedberg, Anne. The End of Cinema: Multimedia and Technological Change. Reinventing Film Studies. Ed.
Christine Gledhill and Linda Williams. London: Arnold, 2000. 438452.
Golumbia, David. High-Frequency Trading: Networks of Wealth and the Concentration of Power. Social
Semiotics 23.2 (2013): 278-299. Pre-print: http://www.uncomputing.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/golumbia.high-frequency-trading.pre-pressDec2012.pdf.
Grieb, Margit. Run Lara Run. ScreenPlay: Cinema/Videogames/Interfaces. Eds. Geoff King and Tanya
Krzywinska. London: Wallflower, 2002. 157-170.
Grisham, Therese, Julia Leyda, Nicholas Rombes, and Steven Shaviro. Roundtable Discussion on the Post-
Cinematic in Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2. La Furia Umana 10 (2011):
http://www.lafuriaumana.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=385:roundtable-discussion-
about-post-cinematic&catid%20=59:la-furia-umana-nd-10-autumn-2011&Itemid=61. Also available here:
http://www.academia.edu/966735/Roundtable_Discussion_about_the_Post-
Cinematic_in_Paranormal_Activity_and_Paranormal_Activity_2.
Grusin, Richard. DVDs, Video Games, and the Cinema of Interactions. Multimedia Histories: From the Magic
Lantern to the Internet. Eds. James Lyons and John Plunkett. Exeter: U of Exeter P, 2007. 209-221.
Hansen, Mark B.N. Bodies in Code: Interfaces with Digital Media. New York: Routledge, 2006.
_____. Living (with) Technical Time: From Media Surrogacy to Distributed Cognition. Theory, Culture & Society
26 (2-3): 294-315.
_____. Media Theory. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2-3): 297-306.
_____. New Media. Critical Terms for Media Studies. Eds. W.J.T. Mitchell and Mark B.N. Hansen. Chicago and
London: U of Chicago P, 2010. 172-185.
_____. New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2004.


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


9
_____. Ubiquitous Sensation: Toward an Atmospheric, Collective, and Microtemporal Model of Media.
Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing. Ed. Ulrik Ekman. Cambridge: MIT, 2013.
63-88.
Hoberman, J. Film after Film: Or, What Became of 21
st
Century Film? London: Verso, 2012.
Huhtamo, Erkki, and Jussi Parikka, eds., Media Archaeology: Approaches, Applications, and Implications.
Berkeley: U of California P, 2011.
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York and London: New York UP,
2006.
Kittler, Friedrich. Computer Graphics: A Semi-Technical Introduction. Grey Room 2 (2001): 30-45.
Lazzarato, Maurizio. Immaterial Labor. Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics. Eds. Paolo Virno and
Michael Hardt. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1996. 133-147.
_____. Machines to Crystalize Time: Bergson. Theory, Culture & Society 24.6 (2007): 93-122.
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
_____. What is Digital Cinema? Online at the authors website: http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital-
cinema.html.
Marshall, P., ed. The Celebrity Culture Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke UP, 2002.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London and New York: Routledge, 1964.
Mitchell, W. J. T. Realism and the Digital Image. Critical Realism in Contemporary Art. Eds. Hilde van Gelder &
Jan Baetens. Leuven: Leuven UP. 13-27.
Mitchell, W.J.T., and Mark B.N. Hansen, eds. Critical Terms for Media Studies. Chicago and London: U of Chicago
P, 2010.
Monnet, Livia. A-Life and the Uncanny in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Science Fiction Studies 31.1 (2004):
97-121.
Moulier Boutang, Yann. Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity, 2011.
Lorrie Palmer, Cranked Masculinity: Hypermediation in Digital Action Cinema. Cinema Journal 51.4 (2012): 1-
25.
Parikka, Jussi. What is Media Archaeology? Cambridge: Polity, 2012.
Pasquinelli, Matteo. Googles PageRank Algorithm: A Diagram of Cognitive Capitalism and the Rentier of the
Common Intellect. Deep Search: The Politics of Search Beyond Google. Eds. Konrad Becker and Felix Stalder.
Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2009. 152-162. Authors repository:
http://matteopasquinelli.com/docs/Pasquinelli_PageRank.pdf.
Prince, Stephen. True Lies: Perceptual Realism, Digital Images, and Film Theory. Film Quarterly 49.3: 27-37.
Rodowick, D. N. Gilles Deleuzes Time Machine. Durham: Duke UP, 1997.
Rust, Stephen, Salma Monani, and Sean Cubitt, eds. Ecocinema Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge,
2012.
Shaviro, Steven. Connected: Or What it Means to Live in the Network Society. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P,
2003.
_____. Steven Shaviro, Melancholia or, the Romantic Anti-Sublime. Sequence 1.1 (2012):
http://reframe.sussex.ac.uk/sequence1/1-1-melancholia-or-the-romantic-anti-sublime/.
_____. Post-Cinematic Affect. Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2010.
_____. Post-Cinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding Gate and Southland Tales. Film-Philosophy 14.1
(2010): 1-102.
Sobchack, Vivian. The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1992.
_____. The Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Photographic, Cinematic, and Electronic Presence. Carnal
Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 2004. 135-
162.
Stork, Matthias. Chaos Cinema. Video essay in three parts. <http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/matthias-
stork-chaos-cinema-part-3#>.
Strauven, Wanda, ed. The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2006.
Telotte, J. P. Animating Space: From Mickey to WALL-E. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 2010.


Digital Film, Chaos Cinema, Post-Cinematic Affect:
Thinking 21st Century Motion Pictures (Winter 2013/2014)


10
Tofts, Darren. Truth at Twelve Thousand Frames per Second: The Matrix and Time-Image Cinema. 24/7: Time
and Temporality in the Network Society. Eds. Robert Hassan and Ronald E. Purser. Stanford: Stanford UP,
2007. 109-121.
Tryon, Chuck. Reinventing Cinema: Movies in the Age of Media Convergence. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2009.
Wark, McKenzie. Gamer Theory. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2007. Version 2.0 available online:
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory2.0/.
Wetmore, Kevin J., Jr. Post-9/11 Horror in American Cinema. London: Continuum, 2012.