vaguely oppressive abstract analysis" (Doane, Emergence 228). Cinephiliac moments, I

will ultimately argue, are like lightning flashes: they pulsate briefly, sometimes in the

margins of our attention, exceeding their narrative contexts and offering unconventional

points of entry into the cinematic and cultural landscape of Classic Hollywood.

 The Cinephiliac Turn

 At the centennial marking the invention of cinema, Susan Sontag lamented the

fading of what was arguably the most dynamic and influential art form of the twentieth

century.8 Tracing the "life cycle" of cinema's first one hundred years, she argued that the

medium once regarded as "quintessentially modern; distinctively accessible; poetic and

mysterious and erotic and moral-all at the same time" has now become "a decadent art"

("Century" 118, 117). Why? Because what was once a vibrant medium of cultural

expression has now fallen prey to hyperindustrialization. Back then, "[y]ou fell in love

not just with actors but with cinema itself' ("Century" 120). The then she is referring to

is mainly the period consisting of the two decades after World War II, when cinephilia

made its debut, which was "also the moment when the Hollywood studio system was

breaking up" ("Century" 120). Back then, "going to movies, thinking about movies,

talking about movies became a passion among university students and other young

people" ("Century" 120). Back then, before the age of television, cinema had sweeping

cultural and intellectual force. While this kind of cine-love can be traced back to the

Impressionists and Surrealists of an earlier generation, it was the two-decade postwar

period that became the moment of cinephilia. Back then, cinephiles believed that "the

movies encapsulated everything-and they did. It was both the book of art and the book

of life" ("Century" 118). Fuelled by an intense desire to experiment with filmmaking