Wrapping Up “Through the Eyes of Those Who Are No Longer”: Paolo Taviani’s Leonora addio (2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have enjoyed this research very much and find the article strong and publishable. It is a great contribution to the field. With assumptions such as "The utopian potential of cinema lies in subverting the illusory consistency of ideology and mapping out the contradictions of reality (themselves a construction, not a given) by working through the symptoms of the inconsistencies of the way cinema represents that reality," the author begins her/his article with a clearly defined theoretical roadmap. The references are multiple and always indicated throughout the work. The use of Lacanian psychoanalysis is justified for the approaches offered in the article; it is also refreshing and non-systematical, which I have appreciated. It is fascinating to observe the connections between utopia and the dead mother. The Deleuzian critical layer is also very adequate here and strenghten the research. 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback and comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting and a worthwhile case study for exploring the themes of death, time and memory indicated in the special issue, to which it is meant to contribute. However, as it stands, it somewhat lacks a clear and coherent argument. The Despite the title suggesting that the paper focusses on 'Leonora addio', the whole first part is spent on a Lacanian analysis of Kaos, with an added dimension of Marxist theory. When moving on to Leonora, the author admits that Lacanian theory is of little use and applies Deleuzian notions on the crystal image. This later part seems much more fitting for both the special issue and the focus of the journal more general. I would encourage the author to either dispose of or substantially reduce the first section, and expand and strengthen the argument and analysis of the second part based on a Deleuzian reading of 'Leonora addio'. If needed, references to the earlier film could still be included here, but a stronger foregrounding of Deleuze’s theories would give the paper a more appropriate anchoring and direction. Finally, the abstract makes a nod to testament films, as is the theme of the special issue, but this is not really addressed clearly in the paper (beyond a brief nod in line 44). It would be helpful to articulate in more detail how the film fits into this area.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would also suggest revising the abstract. Most of it consists of one very long, complicated sentence (lines 11-20). Please brake up for better clarity. It also refers to a ‘talk’, presumably because this has been adapted from a conference presentation. There are a number of flaws in language/grammar throughout, so the paper would certainly profit from a proofreader.

Author Response

• The abstract has been revised as per the request of reviewer #2.
• Reviewer #2 has also suggested to articulate in more detail how the film fits into the area of testament films, which I did by adding a paragraph right before the final paragraph of the article, in the “Conclusion” section.
• The concerns expressed by reviewer #2 with regard to the article’s methodological heterogeneity/inconsistency (in the testament film at issue the Marxist/Lacanian analytical framework is dismissed as not pertinent and yet it is used extensively to analyse a non-testament film like Kaos, itself occupying too much space) has been addressed in a different way than the one that has been suggested by the reviewer, i.e. by adding a paragraph at the end of the “Introduction” section in which I explain the rationale of my methodological/structural choice.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be published as it is. In my view there are only two points that require some clarification or precision.

lines 100 - 102: "Therein, not long before the end of the film, she tells him that he should learn to also see things with the eyes of the departed. Thus, the film starts and ends with a gaze that is not human" --> since this is a key theoretical point that triggers the subsequent theoretical analysis, I suggest to better explain this simple sentence. The author is implying that the eyes of the departed is not human, but several humanistic thinkers in the Western tradition and a fortiori non Western thinkers would never assume that the eyes of the departed is nonhuman. 

lines 209 - 211 "terrorism ravaged Italy for the better part of the 1970s, in many ways weakening the then very 210 strong Italian Communist Party (to which the Tavianis were affiliated), which eventually collapsed in the subsequent decade". I understand the need of simplify historical details, but the Italian Communist Party reached its electoral peaks in the political elections of 1976 and the European elections of 1984. It never collapsed, bur rather it transformed itself through a long democratic process which took place from 1989 to 1991 and it eventually turned into PDS in 1991 (which is two decades after terrorism). I suggest to lightly rectify the considered statement without touching the subsequent ones, which can be fully subscribed to.

 

Author Response

• As requested by reviewer #3, I have mitigated the claim on the “collapse” of Italian Communist Party (at the beginning of the section “Utopia reborn from its ashes”).
• Reviewer #3 had also asked me to disentangle the theoretical confusion between “non-living” and “non-human”, which I did in the handful of pertinent passages in the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I still think that the author could have made clearer the relevance of Deleuzian thought to the overall analysis and its mixing with Lacan, as well as provide better signposting throughout the article, the additions have somewhat helped to clarify the author's approach.