The article investigates the function and signification of doors in two silent films, Ernst Lubitsch's 1916 When I Was Dead and Charlie Chaplin's 1917 The Adventurer. Taking a theoretical perspective provided by the field of intellectual inquiry known as cultural techniques ( Kulturtechniken), the door in these films is studied with respect to its procedural and functional operations. Specifically, the article focuses on the ways in which the employment of doors in each of the films relates to these films' configurations of inside and outside as conceptual realms. The analysis presented shows that Lubitsch and Chaplin engage doors in uniquely different ways. It further reveals that, while the operation of the door in When I Was Dead reinforces an exclusive binary of inside and outside, which itself can be traced back to the film's concern with sexual difference, the operation of the door in The Adventurer essentially deconstructs the inside/outside binary, an act that can be linked to a critique of contemporary notions of industrial management and the treatment of humans as machines.
{"title":"Rethinking Inside and Outside: The Door in Ernst Lubitsch's When I Was Dead and Charlie Chaplin's The Adventurer","authors":"Ido Lewit","doi":"10.3366/film.2023.0218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2023.0218","url":null,"abstract":"The article investigates the function and signification of doors in two silent films, Ernst Lubitsch's 1916 When I Was Dead and Charlie Chaplin's 1917 The Adventurer. Taking a theoretical perspective provided by the field of intellectual inquiry known as cultural techniques ( Kulturtechniken), the door in these films is studied with respect to its procedural and functional operations. Specifically, the article focuses on the ways in which the employment of doors in each of the films relates to these films' configurations of inside and outside as conceptual realms. The analysis presented shows that Lubitsch and Chaplin engage doors in uniquely different ways. It further reveals that, while the operation of the door in When I Was Dead reinforces an exclusive binary of inside and outside, which itself can be traced back to the film's concern with sexual difference, the operation of the door in The Adventurer essentially deconstructs the inside/outside binary, an act that can be linked to a critique of contemporary notions of industrial management and the treatment of humans as machines.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47113117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the way in which the generative capacity of language inflects objects and props in several films by Alfred Hitchcock, focusing in particular on Rope (1948) and Strangers on a Train (1951). Camera angle and framing, the duration of the shot, the close-up or the long shot – all give shape to the filmed object. But why is language – or its absence – not mentioned among the set of operations that determines cinematic objects? In the form of dialogue or imaged writing (words or letters visible in the frame), it notably contextualizes the object in Hitchcock's films. Language in relation to objects can be punning; it can extend the image, evoking another, unimaged object through the use of rhyme, and it may act as a verbal solution to a puzzle. When imaged as writing, language is materialized, itself an object. At their most macabre, Hitchcock films stage an oscillation between a word's literal and figurative use, generating an undertext that extends beyond the joke the film's surface makes available. This discussion teases out several functions of language in Hitchcock films as it impacts the viewer's understanding of objects, moments when language creates undertexts that are clearly intentional but resist interpretation.
{"title":"Hitchcock's Undertexts: Objects and Language","authors":"Brigitte Peucker","doi":"10.3366/film.2023.0216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2023.0216","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the way in which the generative capacity of language inflects objects and props in several films by Alfred Hitchcock, focusing in particular on Rope (1948) and Strangers on a Train (1951). Camera angle and framing, the duration of the shot, the close-up or the long shot – all give shape to the filmed object. But why is language – or its absence – not mentioned among the set of operations that determines cinematic objects? In the form of dialogue or imaged writing (words or letters visible in the frame), it notably contextualizes the object in Hitchcock's films. Language in relation to objects can be punning; it can extend the image, evoking another, unimaged object through the use of rhyme, and it may act as a verbal solution to a puzzle. When imaged as writing, language is materialized, itself an object. At their most macabre, Hitchcock films stage an oscillation between a word's literal and figurative use, generating an undertext that extends beyond the joke the film's surface makes available. This discussion teases out several functions of language in Hitchcock films as it impacts the viewer's understanding of objects, moments when language creates undertexts that are clearly intentional but resist interpretation.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46137426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the 2020 Turkish Netflix series Bir Başkadır ( Ethos) written and directed by Berkun Oya about contemporary Turkey through its objects. With objects surge memories, which are both personal and collective. From the charged objects that convey private attachments, traumas, and histories to ordinary household trinkets and finally archival audiovisual material, this series assumes the status of museum in its drive to carefully exhibit the material world on screen. As the Turkish title of the series indicates, these objects are “ bir başkadır”: one of a kind. Through themes and practices of lost innocence, counter-archives, and archiveology, I sift through the quotidian objects, miniatures, old photos, souvenirs, and analogue film footage re-presented and re-collected in this series with an eye to their new scope and allure. The past and present rest adjacent to one another in the mise-en-scène of this series. In engagement with the philosophical writings of Walter Benjamin on the collector, the archive, and memory, Andreas Huyssen's concept of the “museal gaze,” Jennifer Culbert's “counter-archival sensibility,” and finally Catherine Russell's practice of “archiveology,” this article examines how the objects that fashion the on-screen world acquire depth and meaning and the film as museum comes to form.
本文探讨了由Berkun Oya编剧和导演的2020年土耳其网飞电视剧《Bir Başkadır（Ethos）》，该剧通过其对象讲述了当代土耳其。随着物体的出现，记忆激增，这既是个人的，也是集体的。从传递私人依恋、创伤和历史的带电物体，到普通的家庭小饰品，再到档案视听材料，这一系列作品在努力在屏幕上仔细展示物质世界的过程中，占据了博物馆的地位。正如该系列的土耳其标题所示，这些物体是“bir başkadır”：独一无二的。通过失去童真、反档案和档案学的主题和实践，我筛选了本系列中重新呈现和收集的日常物品、微缩模型、旧照片、纪念品和模拟电影片段，以期了解它们的新范围和吸引力。在这个系列的mise en scène中，过去和现在彼此相邻。与Walter Benjamin关于收藏家、档案馆和记忆的哲学著作接触，Andreas Huyssen的“博物馆凝视”概念，Jennifer Culbert的“反档案情感”，最后是Catherine Russell的“档案学”实践，这篇文章探讨了时尚屏幕世界的物体是如何获得深度和意义的，以及作为博物馆的电影是如何形成的。
{"title":"Film as Museum: One-of-a-Kind Objects in Berkun Oya's Bir Başkadır","authors":"Olivia Landry","doi":"10.3366/film.2023.0220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2023.0220","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the 2020 Turkish Netflix series Bir Başkadır ( Ethos) written and directed by Berkun Oya about contemporary Turkey through its objects. With objects surge memories, which are both personal and collective. From the charged objects that convey private attachments, traumas, and histories to ordinary household trinkets and finally archival audiovisual material, this series assumes the status of museum in its drive to carefully exhibit the material world on screen. As the Turkish title of the series indicates, these objects are “ bir başkadır”: one of a kind. Through themes and practices of lost innocence, counter-archives, and archiveology, I sift through the quotidian objects, miniatures, old photos, souvenirs, and analogue film footage re-presented and re-collected in this series with an eye to their new scope and allure. The past and present rest adjacent to one another in the mise-en-scène of this series. In engagement with the philosophical writings of Walter Benjamin on the collector, the archive, and memory, Andreas Huyssen's concept of the “museal gaze,” Jennifer Culbert's “counter-archival sensibility,” and finally Catherine Russell's practice of “archiveology,” this article examines how the objects that fashion the on-screen world acquire depth and meaning and the film as museum comes to form.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43377737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to Special Issue: Film Objects","authors":"Elizabeth Ezra, Catherine Wheatley","doi":"10.3366/film.2023.0213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2023.0213","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49140695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the role of filmic objects within the romantic relationships featured in Ernst Lubitsch’s silent The Marriage Circle (1924) and the comedy Trouble in Paradise (1932). I argue that these objects reflect a unique engagement with the materiality of film décor, which makes use of the strong presence of objects to portray intimacy as the site of inconclusive meaning. By examining both films together, I demonstrate how the world of inanimate objects brings erotic undertones to the surface while challenging the material conditions of the erotic itself. In order to do so, I examine the ways in which Lubitsch relies on material details not only as functional narrative devices, but as elements that challenge and complicate our interpretations of familiar things. While the underacknowledged use of objects in The Marriage Circle illustrates the logic of displacement that stands at the center of the director’s style, Trouble in Paradise provides a framework for recognizing the critical role of objects in the structure of desire in his films. This article sets up a new reading of tactility and materiality in Lubitsch’s use of mise en scéne and seeks to give objects a prominent role in the analysis of his style.
本文探讨了电影对象在恩斯特·卢比奇（Ernst Lubitsch）的无声作品《婚姻圈》（1924）和喜剧《天堂里的麻烦》（1932）中的浪漫关系中的作用。我认为，这些物体反映了对电影装饰物质性的独特参与，电影装饰利用物体的强烈存在将亲密感描绘成具有不确定性意义的场所。通过将这两部电影放在一起研究，我展示了无生命物体的世界是如何将情色的潜台词带到表面，同时挑战情色本身的物质条件的。为了做到这一点，我研究了卢比奇依赖材料细节的方式，这些细节不仅是功能性叙事手段，而且是挑战我们对熟悉事物的解释并使其复杂化的元素。虽然《婚姻圈》中对物体的使用未被充分认识，这说明了作为导演风格中心的位移逻辑，但《天堂的烦恼》为认识物体在他的电影中欲望结构中的关键作用提供了一个框架。本文对卢比奇使用mise en scéne中的触觉性和物质性进行了新的解读，并试图赋予物体在分析其风格中的突出作用。
{"title":"Love Objects: Eros and the Materialistic Aesthetics of Ernst Lubitsch","authors":"Noa Merkin","doi":"10.3366/film.2023.0217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2023.0217","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the role of filmic objects within the romantic relationships featured in Ernst Lubitsch’s silent The Marriage Circle (1924) and the comedy Trouble in Paradise (1932). I argue that these objects reflect a unique engagement with the materiality of film décor, which makes use of the strong presence of objects to portray intimacy as the site of inconclusive meaning. By examining both films together, I demonstrate how the world of inanimate objects brings erotic undertones to the surface while challenging the material conditions of the erotic itself. In order to do so, I examine the ways in which Lubitsch relies on material details not only as functional narrative devices, but as elements that challenge and complicate our interpretations of familiar things. While the underacknowledged use of objects in The Marriage Circle illustrates the logic of displacement that stands at the center of the director’s style, Trouble in Paradise provides a framework for recognizing the critical role of objects in the structure of desire in his films. This article sets up a new reading of tactility and materiality in Lubitsch’s use of mise en scéne and seeks to give objects a prominent role in the analysis of his style.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48680439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tiago de Luca (2021) Planetary Cinema: Film, media and the earth","authors":"Karim Townsend","doi":"10.3366/film.2023.0221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2023.0221","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41918896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses Eric Rohmer’s film theory in the light of the Platonic triad of truth, beauty and goodness, as embodied by the aesthetic philosophy of Kant, Hegel and Schiller. Although his film theory shows affinity with Kant’s ideal of art as a form of natural beauty, I will argue that a broader look at Rohmer’s philosophical foundations is necessary. The point where Rohmer’s film theory deviates from Kant’s triadic philosophy is exactly the point where he approaches the aesthetics of Hegel and Schiller. Turning towards their idealistic philosophy creates a new understanding of Rohmer’s film theory. His ideas on cinema’s ontology and value mirror both Hegel’s emphasis on beauty as the artistic and immediate manifestation of trans-historical truth and Schiller’s belief in beauty as the condition for morality and freedom. Plato’s conceptual and intertwined triad of truth, beauty and goodness lies at the basis of his affinity to 18th century aesthetic philosophy. This close affinity raises the question of the relation between film theory and philosophy, and Rohmer’s position in this debate. He enriches his own thoughts with those of philosophers that inspired him, and enriches their legacy with his cinema-related conclusions.
{"title":"Truth, Beauty and Goodness: Freedom and the Platonic Triad in Eric Rohmer’s Film Theory","authors":"Hanne Schelstraete","doi":"10.3366/film.2022.0204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2022.0204","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses Eric Rohmer’s film theory in the light of the Platonic triad of truth, beauty and goodness, as embodied by the aesthetic philosophy of Kant, Hegel and Schiller. Although his film theory shows affinity with Kant’s ideal of art as a form of natural beauty, I will argue that a broader look at Rohmer’s philosophical foundations is necessary. The point where Rohmer’s film theory deviates from Kant’s triadic philosophy is exactly the point where he approaches the aesthetics of Hegel and Schiller. Turning towards their idealistic philosophy creates a new understanding of Rohmer’s film theory. His ideas on cinema’s ontology and value mirror both Hegel’s emphasis on beauty as the artistic and immediate manifestation of trans-historical truth and Schiller’s belief in beauty as the condition for morality and freedom. Plato’s conceptual and intertwined triad of truth, beauty and goodness lies at the basis of his affinity to 18th century aesthetic philosophy. This close affinity raises the question of the relation between film theory and philosophy, and Rohmer’s position in this debate. He enriches his own thoughts with those of philosophers that inspired him, and enriches their legacy with his cinema-related conclusions.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43006270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses Michel Serres's topological thinking and his approach to space and time from a film studies perspective, specifically looking at connections between Serresian philosophy and the work of Christopher Nolan, using Dunkirk (2017) as an example of folded time. The article provides a selective overview of Serres's topological thinking, which opposes a geometrical approach to space and time, as well as indicating connections between Serresian thought and film studies more broadly. Serres makes frequent use of visual metaphors that rely upon motion, which means discussing Serres's philosophy in relation to film can be a purposeful way to make sense of his topological thinking about spatialized time. Serresian philosophy can bring new ideas to film studies while discussion of Serres's thinking from a film studies perspective can help to visualize some of his philosophical ideas. The article considers similarities with, and distinctions from, Gilles Deleuze's understanding of time in cinema, which is modelled on the work of Henri Bergson. One essential difference is that Serres approaches topological time in relation to space whereas Deleuze only considers topological aspects to time through the virtual qualities of the non-spatialized time-image. Key aims of the article are to contribute to film studies through the application of Serresian thinking in relation to Dunkirk as well as offering a new approach to the recurrent themes of space and time in Nolan's work. The main objective is to present Serresian topological thinking as an alternative approach to space and time in film studies, which includes the capability to potentially complement or enhance ideas developed by Deleuze and Bergson. In keeping with Serresian philosophy this article pursues a new way of thinking about folded time in relation to film, based upon exploring new territory and synthesizing ideas rather than attempting to present a universal argument.
{"title":"Michel Serres, Topology and Folded Time in Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk","authors":"K. Hunt","doi":"10.3366/film.2022.0203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2022.0203","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses Michel Serres's topological thinking and his approach to space and time from a film studies perspective, specifically looking at connections between Serresian philosophy and the work of Christopher Nolan, using Dunkirk (2017) as an example of folded time. The article provides a selective overview of Serres's topological thinking, which opposes a geometrical approach to space and time, as well as indicating connections between Serresian thought and film studies more broadly. Serres makes frequent use of visual metaphors that rely upon motion, which means discussing Serres's philosophy in relation to film can be a purposeful way to make sense of his topological thinking about spatialized time. Serresian philosophy can bring new ideas to film studies while discussion of Serres's thinking from a film studies perspective can help to visualize some of his philosophical ideas. The article considers similarities with, and distinctions from, Gilles Deleuze's understanding of time in cinema, which is modelled on the work of Henri Bergson. One essential difference is that Serres approaches topological time in relation to space whereas Deleuze only considers topological aspects to time through the virtual qualities of the non-spatialized time-image. Key aims of the article are to contribute to film studies through the application of Serresian thinking in relation to Dunkirk as well as offering a new approach to the recurrent themes of space and time in Nolan's work. The main objective is to present Serresian topological thinking as an alternative approach to space and time in film studies, which includes the capability to potentially complement or enhance ideas developed by Deleuze and Bergson. In keeping with Serresian philosophy this article pursues a new way of thinking about folded time in relation to film, based upon exploring new territory and synthesizing ideas rather than attempting to present a universal argument.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43513421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993) and Only Lovers Left Alive (Jim Jarmusch, 2013) are fantasy films that use the device of practical immortality in order to raise important philosophical questions about what constitutes a good life and to explore the nature of romantic love. Groundhog Day provides fairly conventional answers about how to live a good life by focusing on issues of spiritual redemption, selflessness, and developing one’s human potential. In contrast, Lovers provides a dark portrayal of a civilization on the brink of extinction but offers a glimmer of hope for the future. The lifestyle and values of married vampires Adam and Eve represent an alternative vision of the core values needed to sustain a better world: greater reliance on human imagination, maintaining a sense of wonder and curiosity about the world, creating and appreciating works of art and living in harmony with the natural world. Both films also offer a perspective on the importance of romantic love in living a good life. Although these perspectives often diverge from one another, they do overlap in some interesting ways. The style of film criticism used in this paper is inspired by the film philosophy of Stanley Cavell.
{"title":"Immortality, the Good Life and Romantic Love in Groundhog Day and Only Lovers Left Alive","authors":"Rick Zinman","doi":"10.3366/film.2022.0208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2022.0208","url":null,"abstract":"Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993) and Only Lovers Left Alive (Jim Jarmusch, 2013) are fantasy films that use the device of practical immortality in order to raise important philosophical questions about what constitutes a good life and to explore the nature of romantic love. Groundhog Day provides fairly conventional answers about how to live a good life by focusing on issues of spiritual redemption, selflessness, and developing one’s human potential. In contrast, Lovers provides a dark portrayal of a civilization on the brink of extinction but offers a glimmer of hope for the future. The lifestyle and values of married vampires Adam and Eve represent an alternative vision of the core values needed to sustain a better world: greater reliance on human imagination, maintaining a sense of wonder and curiosity about the world, creating and appreciating works of art and living in harmony with the natural world. Both films also offer a perspective on the importance of romantic love in living a good life. Although these perspectives often diverge from one another, they do overlap in some interesting ways. The style of film criticism used in this paper is inspired by the film philosophy of Stanley Cavell.","PeriodicalId":42990,"journal":{"name":"Film-Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44692407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：