Add new comment

Error message

The spam filter installed on this site is currently unavailable. Per site policy, we are unable to accept new submissions until that problem is resolved. Please try resubmitting the form in a couple of minutes.

Very well said. Your post goes a long way towards clarifying this really intriguing talk. But I think we can push a little harder on this idea of the cinephile's love of "the idea of cinema" in contrast to the transmediaphile's love of "the idea of" ... what really? Their own curation?

I think medium, for cinephiles, refers to a complex ontology (which is why the can sometimes be insufferable): a Bazinian cinephile, for example, relishes the power of the medium to reveal both "the nature of cinema" and the world which cinema mediates. This is the Bertolucci-esque communality and consecration of movie watching (the transubstantiation of the cinematic body into the real body) that Collins seems to be referring to in his citation from The Dreamers. Thus, the cinephile is marked not by the love of a single text or group of texts (as you say), but by love for the entire Being of cinema that is revealed by all film texts and film cultures (though some texts and cultures reveal more along these lines, it seems, than others).

So, the cinephile, of course, fetishizes actual celluloid, but all the cinephiles I know are inveterate collectors of whatever cinema media they can get their hands on. Thus a transmediaphile is most likely also a cinephile--just with a different way of organizing their artefacts than previous generations of cinephiles.

Though I very much enjoyed Collins' talk, I was hoping he would take us into the transmediaphile community, or at least help us understand better what I take to be his own transmediaphilia. As it stands, I can't really see the difference between transmediaphilia and fandom: they are both fundamentally about the consumption of texts. And who is ever just a fan of one text? Even the idea of self-curation, of being one's own playlist, seems more like a concern with self-narrativizing to me than worldmaking along the lines of classic cinephiles. But this impression might just be a consequence of Collins' decision to focus on advertisements at the end of his talk.

Is the transmediaphile someone who really just loves rapidly shifting between media (movie, music, website, and back around)? Can anyone love that?

I'm not sure that the new tools (iPads, etc) of organizing that experience describe a new way of engagement or a new object of love. But they may help us understand the current mania for narrative (the centrepieces of transmedia practices tend to be shows like Mad Men and The Wire), and certainly help draw attention to the fact that cinephilia was never really about a fascination with narrative worlds ... the worldmaking happened differently.

Are you a transmediaphile, Juan? And if one loves not just movies, but music, painting, dance, and television shows, is that person a transmediaphile--or just someone who likes cultural products ... and maybe even art?

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.