Unsolicited submissions to all sections of Senses of Cinema are welcome, and may take the form of outlines, incomplete drafts or finished pieces. Proposals for the main section should be sent to editor[at]sensesofcinema.com. When sending an outline for an article it helps to give as much information as possible about your projected line of argument as well as your subject matter. If what you have in mind seems appropriate, we will encourage you to go ahead, though generally publication is not guaranteed before the finished article is submitted. If you are sending a proposal only and have not contributed to Senses of Cinema before, please attach a sample of your past writing on film, or supply a URL where we can find this. All contributions are unpaid.
Submissions for all sections should be sent as Word or Rich Text Format documents. Layout and formatting should conform as closely as possible to current Senses of Cinema house style: use any of the articles in the latest issue as models, or write to us if you have particular style queries. In particular, make sure your article is accompanied by correctly formatted endnotes supplying page-specific references for all written quotes and factual information. If you have not contributed before, submissions to all sections (except the letters page) should be accompanied by a biographical note of 50 words or less.
When submitting articles you are encouraged to provide accompanying images (72dpi, no larger) or suggestions on where these might be found. All stills and technical queries should be sent to Rachel Brown, rachel[at]sensesofcinema.com
Our policy is not to republish material that is already freely available online in English (including on personal websites). Contributors are welcome to submit articles previously published in hard copy, especially if the books or journals where they appeared are no longer available or have not been widely circulated internationally. However, when submitting articles please let us know if they have already been published elsewhere (in English or otherwise). Conversely, as Senses of Cinema shares copyright with authors over all work published, we appreciate if you let us know before seeking to republish your own writing from the journal elsewhere.
We are open to submissions in languages other than English, although this may present difficulties depending on the language and the availability of a translator. If you are interested in working as a translator for Senses of Cinema, please see below.
We publish both academic and non-academic articles and are open to a range of styles and critical approaches. Articles can be refereed on request (see below for more detail). Specific suggested topics for our upcoming issue are available here and give some idea of the range of subject-matter we aim to cover. However, prospective writers are encouraged to explore topics of their own choice, particularly those not already written about in the journal, and in general we are always pleased to consider any of the following:
• Critical studies of little-known/undervalued films and filmmakers (including screenwriters, actors, etc)
• Re-evaluations of major films and filmmakers
• Review-essays on significant contemporary films
• Interviews with significant filmmakers and film theorists
• Original essays in film theory
Under all these headings, we are especially receptive to essays on Australian film and film culture.
In general we look for writing that has a personal voice, an original argument, and detailed analysis of the style and themes of particular films. Interviews should also be analytically-focused and aim to discuss film aesthetics in some detail (if there is someone in particular you would like to interview, let us know and we may be able to help in setting it up). There is no strict word limit in the main section, but the majority of articles published run between 2000 and 6000 words.
Finally, be aware that it may take up to a couple of months for us to read and consider submissions.
We are interested in reports from large and small film festivals around the world. If you would like to write on a particular festival, it’s best to contact us well before it starts, though we will also consider submissions at a later stage. Reports should concentrate as far as possible on films which have not been widely screened elsewhere and/or those which have not been written about before in Senses of Cinema.
Contributors are encouraged to take an individual approach in composing their festival reports; rather than trying to give a comprehensive picture of the entire festival it’s often better to write in more detail about a smaller number of especially memorable films. While reports should have titles (e.g. “Taking Off: The 47th San Francisco International Film Festival”) it’s up to the author to decide how far reviews of individual films should be integrated into a larger framework. Festival reports typically run between 2000 and 4000 words.
Please contact Michelle Carey, michelle[at]sensesofcinema.com, regarding writing a film festival or conference report.
As we can publish reviews of only a small fraction of new film-related books, our focus is on works of criticism, theory and history that are of potential interest to both the scholar and the general reader. Books on Australian cinema or by Australian authors are of special interest, and reviews of significant books published in languages other than English are also very welcome. Again, if you would like to review a particular book, please send either a proposal, a draft, or the finished review. Alternately if you have no particular book in mind, you are welcome to send a general expression of interest in reviewing, citing areas of expertise.
Once again, individual approaches to book reviewing are encouraged; we prefer reviewers to engage with the substantive issues raised by a book and mount arguments of their own rather than simply giving a chapter-by-chapter summary and evaluation. The typical length for reviews is between 1000 and 2000 words, though it’s fine to write at greater length if this seems warranted. We are also receptive to proposals for “essay-reviews” which may cover more than one book or use a single book as a starting-point for a wider discussion. Page references should be given for all quotes. All reviews should have titles (e.g. “Energy Unleashed: Leos Carax by Fergus Daly and Garin Dowd”). Generally, images are not required for shorter book reviews.
Please contact Wendy Haslem, wendy[at]sensesofcinema.com, regarding writing a book review.
The Great Directors section comprises profiles of established directors (if you are interested in covering an emerging or mid-career director, this would be better placed in the general section). This critical database aims to dispel traditional notions of “the directorial canon” and welcomes submissions of interest on filmmakers from any corner of the globe and any period of cinema history. Productivity, independence, exposure, personal character, thematic concerns and even technical proficiency are in no way vital criteria when identifying a “great director”. All we ask is that the suggested director exhibits a personal or unique style and has contributed in a noteworthy way to cinema history. A partial list of suggested directors can be found below.
When expressing interest on profiling a Director, please outline your impression of their place in cinema history, how you would approach your subject and a couple of paragraphs on what you would include in the essay (following the guiding points below). It is essential to have seen the bulk of the Director’s work (except where prints may have been destroyed or lost) and be intimate with critical writings on and/or by him/her. However it is also important to admit any gaps in your viewing, particularly if the film/s have not been distributed or screened often (as lack of adequate distribution or exhibition opportunities inevitably feed into a Director’s place in cinema history). Expressions of interest for a Great Directors profile should be sent to editor[at]sensesofcinema.com.
Each individual profile includes a critical essay, filmography, bibliography and web resources. The essay should run between 3000 and 5000 words, and should include biography, analyses of individual films (including neglected works), historiography of your subject (if applicable) and critical appraisal. Films need not necessarily be discussed in a chronological order but most if not all of the director’s career must be covered. The essay should be evaluative as well as descriptive and show evidence of deep research and new insight into the subject. The positing of a thesis is encouraged, particularly with respect to under-appreciated directors. Your essay may have an additional title if you wish and sub-headings are encouraged if the essay is particularly long.
The filmography should list in forward chronological order all of the films directed (including co-direction credits and portmanteau films). You may include Other Credits under this, and this is particularly encouraged if the Director was also prolific in other areas (e.g. screenwriting); please include the director of these films in this list as well. Bibliography should aim to be as complete as possible, including books, articles, anthologies, CD-ROMs and other relevant (non-web) sources. If you wish to include sources that you have referred to in your essay but that are not directly related to the Director, you may do so as Works Cited. Web Resources should include online pages or websites that offer useful and intelligent further insight into the Director. As with other sections of the journal, please refer to previous Great Director profiles for formatting guidelines. If appropriate, Great Directors essays may be submitted for refereeing.
Note: the words “great” and “director” are both to be taken in the broadest sense possible; it is all in the argument!
The key purpose of these annotations is to provide a context for the further appreciation of a specific film by discussing aspects of its production and critical history, by providing a reading of its aesthetic qualities, by analysing its place within a series of related contexts (a particular national cinema, the work of a director, actor, etc.), and so on. They also provide a forum for the sustained discussion and close textual analysis of individual films, while contributing to a substantial database of such writing. Generally, the annotations should generate further discussion and demonstrate a genuine passion or enthusiasm for the chosen film (though they may also be explicitly critical). There are no set guidelines for the form these annotations should take, but essentially we do not want reviews that mostly recount the plot and provide relatively superficial value judgements. We want your annotations to contribute as much as possible to the critical understanding of your chosen film and not just reiterate received opinion. Feel free to discuss your particular approach with us.
Prior to each edition of Senses of Cinema a list of films screening at the Melbourne Cinémathèque is circulated via email. Writers are then matched up with specific films – as there may be several people interested in one film it is a good idea to suggest more than one you would be happy to write on. Articles should follow the guidelines set out generally by Senses of Cinema and should be 800–1000 words in length (though this is definitely negotiable). Submissions for CTEQ Annotations on Film should be sent to Dr Adrian Danks at adrian[at]sensesofcinema.com. You can subscribe to the contributors list below.
Please note that there is a moratorium on publishing Top Tens for the time being, pending an opportunity for Senses of Cinema to overhaul a somewhat outmoded means of recording and tallying the great many lists sent to us.
If you would like to send a Top Ten list in the meantime nonetheless, for us to consider in due course, you may, to editor[at]sensesofcinema.com. But please be advised that it might be some time before it is published.
Lindsay Anderson; André Antoine; Xavier Beauvois; Marco Bellocchio; Robert Breer; Arthur and Corinne Cantrill; Youssef Chahine; Charles Chauvel; Věra Chytilová; René Clair; Shirley Clarke; Pierre Clementi; Pedro Costa; Eduardo de Gregorio; Mike de Leon; Manoel de Oliveira; Vittorio de Sica; Julie Dash; Jules Dassin; Louis Delluc; Arnaud Desplechin; Jacques Doillon; Jacques Doniol-Valcroze; Alexander Dovzhenko; Marguerite Duras; Jean Eustache; Marco Ferreri; Louis Feuillade; Jacques Feyder; Georges Franju; Abel Gance; Philippe Garrel; Costa Gavras; Peter Gidal; Amos Gitai; Robert Guédiguian; Im Kwon-taek; Otar Iosseliani; Jon Jost; Jan Kadar; Nelly Kaplan; Keisuke Kinoshita; Marcel L’Herbier; Lumière Brothers; Mohsen Makhmalbaf; Jiří Menzel; Takashi Miike; Luc Moullet; Ulrike Ottinger; G.W. Pabst; Ivan Passer; Nelson Pereira dos Santos; Elio Petri; Nicolas Philibert; Maurice Pialat; Gillo Pontecorvo; VI Pudovkin; Bob Rafelson; Dino Risi; Alain Robbe-Grillet; Jean Rouch; Râúl Ruiz; Ettore Scola; Larissa Shepitko; Victor Sjostrom; Jack Smith; Michael Snow; Fernando Solanas; Jean-François Stevenin; Alain Tanner; Taviani Brothers; Peter Tscherkassky; Wladyslaw Starewicz; King Vidor; Josef von Sternberg; Andrzej Wajda; Robert Weine; Krzysztof Zanussi; Andrzej Zulawski
Senses of Cinema is not a fully refereed film journal. However, it provides writers with the option of having their work refereed. If you would like this to happen, let us know upon submitting an article (note that generally we do not send pieces to outside referees until they have been provisionally accepted for publication). Please allow at least four weeks for the refereeing process.
Articles are sent as “blind reviews” to a minimum of two referees who are experts in their field. Senses of Cinema is listed on the Register of Refereed Journals maintained by the Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia.
Referees include but are not limited to:
Jodi Brooks theories of spectatorship, German critical theory, film sound, black American cinema, theories of television
Felicity Collins Australian cinema, Hollywood, feminist film history and theory, modernity and spectatorship
Barbara Creed contemporary film, surrealism, feminist and postcolonial theory
Adrian Danks film culture, film criticism, cinematic authorship, experimental cinema, art cinema, Australian cinema, American cinema, Iranian cinema, films about filmmaking, the relation between cinema and photography
Darrell Davis Japanese film/literature, Asian Film, documentary, theories of film history, Hollywood, Hou Hsiao-hsien and Taiwan film history
Anna Dzenis narrative, television, cinesthetics
Freda Freiberg Japanese film/literature, Asian film, art cinema
Joe Hardwick French cinema – New Wave and post New Wave, French “existentialist” literature, narrative theory, queer theory, cultural studies
Michael Levine metaphysics; history of philosophy; philosophy and psychoanalytic theory; comparative philosophy; philosophy of history; aesthetics; philosophy, literature and film
Geoff Mayer Australian film, Hollywood and British cinema, melodrama
Rick J. Thompson film research, film criticism, American film, animation
Constantine Verevis new American cinema (American avant-garde of the ’60s onward) and new Hollywood cinema, contemporary film theory and criticism
Deb Verhoeven Australian cinema, Australian film history, film criticism.
Translators are paid a fee for their work, agreed-upon in advance. This fee will be paid whether or not the translation is finally published, provided they supply an accurate and grammatically correct version of the original text.
It is understood that good translation is a difficult and time-consuming task, which requires a specific set of skills and relevant knowledge, and the editors are willing to work with the translator and original author in shaping the best English version.
Offers of volunteer assistance with proofreading and formatting are also gratefully received. Please contact editor[at]sensesofcinema.comif you are interested in being involved.