• book

From the Publisher

The dark shadows and offscreen space that force us to imagine violence we cannot see. The real slaughter of animals spliced with the fictional killing of men. The missing countershot from the murder victim’s point of view. Such images, or absent images, Karla Oeler contends, distill how the murder scene challenges and changes film. 

Reexamining works by such filmmakers as Renoir, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Jarmusch, and Eisenstein, Oeler traces the murder scene’s intricate connections to the great breakthroughs in the theory and practice of montage and the formulation of the rules and syntax of Hollywood genre. She argues that murder plays such a central role in film because it mirrors, on multiple levels, the act of cinematic representation. Death and murder at once eradicate life and call attention to its former existence, just as cinema conveys both the reality and the absence of the objects it depicts. But murder shares with cinema not only this interplay between presence and absence, movement and stillness: unlike death, killing entails the deliberate reduction of a singular subject to a disposable object. Like cinema, it involves a crucial choice about what to cut and what to keep.

Published: University of Chicago Press an imprint of UChicagoPress on
ISBN: 9780226617961
List price: $37.00
Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
Availability for A Grammar of Murder: Violent Scenes and Film Form
With a 30 day free trial you can read online for free
  1. This book can be read on up to 6 mobile devices.

Related Articles

Nautilus
4 min read

Are Digital Cameras Changing the Nature of Movies?

This is part one of a three-part series about the movie industry’s switch to digital cameras and what is lost, and gained, in the process. Part two runs tomorrow; part three runs on Friday. Cinema is a blend of art and technology, working together to capture light, one frame at a time, to create the illusion of motion. Sometimes the captured light of cinema amounts to an aesthetic revolution, as with the deep-focus cinematography of Gregg Toland in Orson Welles’ landmark Citizen Kane, the spectacular wide-screen landscapes shot by Freddie Young in Lawrence of Arabia, or the super-slo-mo “bull
Nautilus
5 min read

Video Games Do Guilt Better Than Any Other Art

The idea that motion pictures can be works of art has been around since the 1920s, and it hasn’t really been disputed since. It’s easy to see why—cinema shares characteristics with theater in terms of acting, direction, music, set design, narrative, and so on. Now we have whole academic departments dedicated to film appreciation, to understanding the emotional and intellectual responses—deep feelings of awe and reverence, among others—that movies can elicit. But video games aren’t assumed to be as artistic as cinema or theater, if it all. In 2010, for instance, the late film critic Roger Eber
The Atlantic
6 min read

Why Are They 'Stars'?

It makes so much sense to refer to certain kinds of celebrities as “stars.” At their heights, those people inspire the rest of us. They shine, larger than life, above us, and around us. They suggest, in their insistent omnipresence, a certain order to the world. To see the stars—or, more specifically, to believe in them, taxonomically—is to endorse a notion that the people before us on our screens, far from us and yet so close, exist, as the author Jeanine Basinger puts it, “on some plane between ours and that of the gods.” But: Why are they “stars,” specifically? Why is Hollywood’s Walk of Fa