Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Traditionally, Weimar cinema has been equated with the work of a handful of auteurist filmmakers and a limited number of canonical films. Often a single, limited phenomenon, "expressionist film," has been taken as synonymous with the cinema of the entire period. But in recent decades, such reductive assessments have been challenged by developments in film theory and archival research that highlight the tremendous richness and diversity of Weimar cinema. This widening of focus has brought attention to issues such as film as commodity; questions of technology and genre; transnational collaborations and national identity; effects of changes in socioeconomics and gender roles on film spectatorship; and connections between film and other arts and media. Such shifts have been accompanied by archival research that has made a cornucopia of new information available, now augmented by the increased availability of films from the period on DVD. This wealth of new source material calls fora re-evaluation of Weimar cinema that considers the legacies of lesser-known directors and producers, popular genres, experiments of the artistic avant-garde, and nonfiction films, all of which are aspects attended to by the essays in this volume.
Contributors: Ofer Ashkenazi, Jaimey Fisher, Veronika Fuechtner, Joseph Garncarz, Barbara Hales, Anjeana Hans, Richard W. McCormick, Nancy P.Nenno, Elizabeth Otto, Mihaela Petrescu, Theodore F. Rippey, Christian Rogowski, Jill Smith, Philipp Stiasny, Chris Wahl, Cynthia Walk, Valerie Weinstein, Joel Westerdale.
Christian Rogowski is Professor of German at Amherst College.
The notion of trying is vital to any theory of action. You could hardly analyse much of what people do without mentioning their efforts, successful and unsuccessful. A man's desires and decisions find expression in his attempts. What you are trying to do is also a prime example of what you know without benefit of evidence and observation. It might seem that little attention has been devoted to this central concept because it is philosophically trouble-free. Isn't trying simply exerting yourself—mentally or physically—as a means of bringing about some result you want? And just as you can think of anything under the sun, can't you try to do anything at all? These and similar natural views of trying call forth a swarm of minor, but challenging problems. To begin with, there are at least three relevant species of trying besides the pre-eminent cause-effect or meansends type. I won't take time to belabor the suggestion that trying is merely bracing yourself inwardly, while manifesting your subcutaneous capers through your behavior. But this quaint hypothesis does raise problems. Is trying just doing something? To what extent is it constituted by the agent's intentions and beliefs? As for what a person can try to do, a random survey indicates that there are unsuspected limits. It sounds absurd to describe a person as attempting to choke, to misplace something, to feel pain, to get annoyed or discouraged.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.