Projections

As we assume our roles as editors of Projections: The Journal for Movies and Mind, we take this opportunity to reflect upon the nature of cognitivism in the study of the moving image. We reflect upon five areas of scholarship that are demonstrative of the wide range of epistemological approaches that represent our field, and in doing so affirm our commitment to the pluralistic nature of the cognitive studies of the moving image. We invite scholars who are committed to the rigorous investigation of the psychological experiences involved in the production or reception of the moving image to contribute to Projections, and in doing so advance the field.

This article examines the functional role of audiovisual techniques in creating suspense in found footage horror films. First, we define found footage horror within the broader genre, highlighting its use of documentary-style filmmaking and the intra-diegetic camera to produce an immersive viewing experience. These elements make it particularly effective for evoking fear and suspense. Second, we present the results of a stylistic analysis of twenty-four selected found footage horror films. To this aim we will distinguish between four key techniques: (1) the application of priming; (2) the vulnerable position of the intra-diegetic camera; (3) the filmmaker's use of off-screen space; and (4) the emphasis on emptiness within frame, sound, time, and long takes. We conclude by summarizing our findings and offering recommendations for future research.

As a prime example of the time loop genre, Edge of Tomorrow (Doug Liman, 2014) deals with the experience of time. But not only does it present the macroscopic time distortion of a character trapped in a day-long time loop; it also draws the viewer to experience the characters’ subjective dimensions of the instant. Doing so, it proposes a psychological exploration that is relevant even for us ordinary denizens of non-looping time. In this article, I will argue that the movie succeeds in immersing the viewer in the microscopic level of the “psychological moment” by means of the combination of two devices within the context of a time loop: first, the entanglement of the epistemic states of the characters and of the viewer; second, the inchoate romance between the two main characters.

Two studies examine meaning-making as a collection of cognitive and affective processes for understanding film messages and extrapolating these lessons to one's own life. Study 1 used a quantitative codebook drawing on existing conceptualizations of meaning-making in psychology to examine the frequency of these themes in open-ended responses about a self-selected film and its impact. Study 2 drills deeper by using qualitative interviews to analyze how audiences perceive self-selected films as meaningful and impactful. These top-down and bottom-up analyses revealed broad similarities and demonstrated that both cognitive evaluations and affective investment are essential elements of meaning-making and post-viewing reflection. A variety of films were reported as meaningful media experiences, emphasizing the importance of individual/context-related factors over content features in meaning-making. This work gives insight into the elements and mechanisms of how meaning-making with films can be seen as part of a larger sense-making process for viewers’ own lives, which contributes to improved psychological well-being.

In their introduction to a recent special issue of Projections titled “What Can Cognitive Media Studies Bring to Social Justice?”, the issue's editors, Wyatt Moss-Wellington, Margrethe Bruun Vaage, and Catalin Brylla make many assertions about cognitive media studies. There is much in their introduction to agree with, especially their contention that disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities should collaborate in studying social justice (broadly construed) in relation to moving images. However, it seems to me that Moss-Wellington, Vaage, and Brylla unnecessarily perpetuate, by partially endorsing, some of the “straw men” arguments that culturalist film scholars like Robert Stam and others have leveled against cognitive media studies since its inception. By a “straw man” argument, to be clear, I mean an argument that misrepresents an opposing point of view to make it easier to attack. And by culturalism, I mean an explanatory paradigm that appeals primarily if not exclusively to culture to explain moving image works and our responses to them. What I say here may seem like nit-picking. But given that these “straw men” arguments are widely used to discredit cognitive media studies in mainstream media studies in the humanities, at least here in the United States, it seems important to counter at least some of them in Projections, the flagship journal of cognitive media studies, which I try to do in the following. Now that many of the founders of the Society for the Cognitive Study of the Moving Image (SCSMI) have retired or are no longer with us, this seems like an opportune moment to take stock of the values and goals of our organization as we chart a path forward. I suspect it would be healthy for us to have a robust debate about Moss-Wellington, Vaage, and Brylla's intervention, which is the primary reason I have written this response.

Erica Joan Dymond, ed. Grief in Contemporary Horror Cinema: Screening Loss. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2023, 230 pp, $105 (hardcover), ISBN: 9781793633934. Reviewed by Xavier Aldana Reyes

Eleftheria Thanouli, A Guide to Post-classical Narration: The Future of Film Storytelling. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2024, 288 pp, $39.95 (paperback), ISBN: 9781501393075. Reviewed by Antonio Loriguillo-López and Teresa Sorolla-Romero

Robert Sinnerbrink, New Philosophies of Film: An Introduction to Cinema as a Way of Thinking, 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2022, 432 pp, $29.95 paperback, ISBN: 978-1350181922. Reviewed by Enrico Terrone

Margrethe Bruun Vaage, The Female Avenger, Women's Anger and Rape-Revenge Film and Television, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2024, 216 pp, $110 hardback, ISBN: 9781399532099. Reviewed by Iris Vidmar Jovanović