Warren,
I'm not sure that recoursing to a prescription of film
theory is the answer here. To do so stifles
progress. As if there could be one answer? Souriau's
categories seem a bit structuralist to me, and seem to take
the differing levels of experience as separated. You might
not agree, and that's where discussion lies. And besides,
how does a film theory from fifty years ago (not that it's
not important and educative) silence the productive years
of film criticism since. When I said a film may end, I
meant the projection. When I said the experience, I meant
the affect. But these are separate only as we might
separate object and subject - only as nominal values. An
author may create the object, and our perception of it is
our own - yet they are also inseparable. As Bergson would
argue.
I do like Souriau's idea of separating authorial intentions
from spectatorial reception, but I have a question:
What is filmic reality, as it has no definition in your
summation, for afilmic reality to rely upon it?
Lastly, I'm sorry that this discussion seems cyclical and
typical for you, and that we're not as erudite or as well
planned as written analysis. Perhaps you
would prefer this to passionate discussion. I'll try
harder. I don't see us reinventing the wheel, since to
assume so is to assume that film, film perception, and film
reception, were created according to a singular principle
which cannot be broken. The abundance of film theory shows
us how slippery film and film theory actually is.
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|