Laura,
Thank you for your response to my question about Stanley Cavell. I know
that I am not reading POH with charity, and am trying to remedy my
narrow-mindedness. If you have the time and inclination, perhaps you will
help me get past this.
I have many concerns as I read POH. I will begin with only one--Cavell's
anchoring the "comedy of remarriage" genre in the works of Shakespeare. This
seems to me to be a bit forced. It seems as if Cavell hopes this anchor will
lend legitimacy to the proposed genre and, perhaps, to "popular" film study,
in general. In the first place, I see the link as being tenuous, at best. I
cannot see a direct, clean relationship between the films mentioned and the
Shakespearean model.
Secondly (and perhaps this is because I have come late to the study of
film), I do not understand why we need this link to lend legitimacy to the
serious exploration of these comedies.
To sum up, I find the Shakespearean base unworkable and unnecessary to the
establishment of the genre. Again, though, this may be because I being
mule-stubborn.
I also strongly suspect that I am missing the historical significance of
Cavell and his work.
Thank you, again.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laura Jean Carroll" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Stanley Cavell
> Karen wrote:
> "I know that Stanley Cavell is held in high regard by many film
> theorists,and that his works are generally respected. I am currently
> re-reading his -Pursuits of Happiness- for a project several people have
> said would be an excellent response to one of his film "readings." The
> problem is that I cannot see why I should be responding to Cavell, and
> strongly suspect that I may have narrow-mindedly missed something.
>
> Is there anyone on this list who can tell me why Cavell's works are
> considered to be important? Any words of wisdom on -Pursuits of
Happiness-,
> in particular, would also be appreciated."
>
> Warning: no 'words of wisdom' from me. But I would like to try to
respond
> to Karen's post.
> Without knowing more about the project mentioned, it's a bit hard to know
> what to say about POH, that is, what angle of the book the project
responds
> to. The book is really very rich. It lays out a concept or theory of
genre
> (genre as medium), as well as exploring a (critically) new one; it
explores
> the films' uses and recognitions of the body and 'real identity' of the
> actor; it works out a way of closely reading films that takes full account
> of how the viewer's critical response is an integral part of the work of
> art; it is deeply and radically committed to the idea that artistic and
> moral seriousness are entirely compatible with popular entertainment. I
> have found its scattered insights into the concept of a 'source' (here,
> Shakespeare's late romances) useful in other contexts. Its major
> achievement is its tracing of the thematics of ideas about moral
> perfectionism - the identity and emergence of the best self - in these
> comedies of remarriage. The films express a readiness, in the face of
> uncertainty about what is personhood and what constitutes true marriage
(is
> either one based in privacy or in community?), to know and embrace the
> mysteriousness and ridiculousness of being thus uncertain, and to continue
> the quest. At least, that's how I understand it. I don't think it is an
> easy book nor Cavell an easy writer to understand, or sum up, in
retrospect
> - I mean when you have put the book down - he is almost always a great
> pleasure to read.
>
> Yours, Laura Carroll
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
|