The Stupider the Better

  • Aaron KernerEmail author
  • Julian Hoxter


In this introductory chapter, the authors conceptualize what the “stupid” means, and its relation to media. The stupid generally refers to things that fail to meet existing categorization (e.g., storytelling conventions, genres). An encounter with media that does not fit into established regimes of knowledge, might be characterized as stupid. The stupid should not be confused with the “bad object.” Rather the stupid often emerges in narrative forms, and finds affinities with the “cinematic attraction.” Storytelling forms evolve, and these changes might be prompted by creative innovations or technological developments. The authors argue that the paradigms of assessment in media studies largely address narrative, however, innovations in storytelling (particularly more recent developments) are not necessarily invested in novelistic or cinematic storytelling as conventionally conceived.


  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist and translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. Beugnet, Martine. “Introduction.” In Indefinite Visions: Cinema and the Attractions of Uncertainty, eds. Martine Beugnet, Allan Cameron, and Arild Fetveit, 1–13. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
  3. Bordwell, David. “Intensified Continuity: Visual Style in Contemporary American Film.” Film Quarterly vol. 55, no. 3 (Spring, 2002): 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinkema, Eugenie. The Forms of the Affects. Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  5. Canavan, Gerry. “Why the Marvel Cinematic Universe Can Show Us a Story, But Can’t Tell Us a Plot.” Frieze (blog). May 3, 2018. Accessed March 12, 2019.
  6. Church, David. “The Doors of Reception: Notes Toward a Psychedelic Film Investigation.” Senses of Cinema 37 (June 2018):
  7. Dudrah, Rajinder. Interviewed by Scott Simon, “World’s Most Popular Film Industry Turns 100.” Weekend Edition Saturday, NPR, December 21, 2013. Accessed November 10, 2018.
  8. Edelstein, David. “Now Playing at Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn.” New York Magazine, February 6, 2006. Accessed November 10, 2018.
  9. Fahey, Mike. “Stupidity Escalates Exquisitely In Earth Defense Force 5.” Kotaku, December 11, 2018. Accessed April 20, 2019.
  10. Gunning, Tom. “‘Now You See It, Now You Don’t’: The Temporality of the Cinema of Attractions.” The Velvet Light Trap 32 (Fall, 1993): 3–12.Google Scholar
  11. Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attraction[s]: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde.” In The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded, ed. Wanda Strauven, 381–388. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Holden, Stephen. “Ogled and Threatened on a Journey to Womanhood.” New York Times, October 28, 2010. Accessed November 10, 2018.
  13. Jancovich, Mark. “Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital and the Production of Cultural Distinctions.” In The Cult Film Reader, eds. Ernest Mathijs and Xavier Mendik, 149–162. New York: McGraw Hill and Open University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  14. Jenkins, Henry. “Game Design as Narrative Architecture.” In First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, eds. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan, 118–130. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. Kerner, Aaron and Knapp, Jonathan. Extreme Cinema: Affective Strategies in Transnational Media. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  16. Kotsko, Adam. Awkwardness. Washington, Zero Books, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Kristeva, Julia. “Ellipse sur la frayer et la seduction spéculaire.” Communications 23 (1975): 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kristeva, Julia. “Ellipsis on Dread and the Specular Seduction.” Translated by Dolores Burdick. Wide Angle vol. 3, no. 3 (1979): 42–47.Google Scholar
  19. Kristeva, Julia. “Ellipsis on Dread and the Specular Seduction.” Translated by Dolores Burdick. In Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader, ed. Philip Rosen, 236–243. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. Kristeva, Julia. Intimate Revolt: The Powers and Limits of Psychoanalysis. Translated by Jeanine Herman. New York: Columbia University, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Musil, Robert. “On Stupidity.” In Precision and Soul: Essays and Addresses, ed. and translated by Burton Pike and David S. Luft, 268–286. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. Plantinga, Carl. Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator’s Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Purse, Lisa. “Affective Trajectories: Locating Diegetic Velocity in the Cinema Experience.” Cinema Journal vol. 55, no. 2 (Winter, 2016): 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ronell, Avital. Stupidity. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. Shaviro, Steven. Post-Cinematic Affect. London: British Film Institute, 2011.Google Scholar
  26. Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: Anchor Books and Doubleday, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. Staiger, Janet. “2001 as the Ultimate Trip: Exposing Altered Spectatorship.” Annual Society for Cinema and Media Studies Conference, Seattle, March 16, 2019.Google Scholar
  28. Stork, Matthias. “CHAOS CINEMA: The Decline and Fall of Action Filmmaking.” IndieWire, August 22, 2011. Accessed November 10, 2018.
  29. Taylor, Greg. Artists in the Audience: Cults, Camp, and American Film Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CinemaSan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations