I just joined the list and read through the last month's worth of posts.  I
noticed though that there really wasn't that much discussion of philosophy
of film.  To generate some discussion I thought I'd post some excerpts from
a discussion I'm having over on alt.postmodernism .  A lot of the discussion
there went off on the tangent of what deconstruction is.  I'll not include
those elements, but would encourage those interested in that aspect to go to
google and read the full thread.   I can add a few other comments from the
thread if you are interested.

--------

I remember when _Unforgiven_ came out how people were calling it
deconstructive.  I just don't get it.  Exactly how is it deconstructive?
It is an excellent movie.  It is complex and nuanced.  It critiques
some of the views that existed in westerns.  But then the same could
be said of _The Wild Bunch_, _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and
so forth.  Heavens, if _Unforgiven_ is deconstructive then we could even
say that _The Searchers_ was deconstructive.

About the only *real* movie I can think of off the top of my head that
is definitely deconstructive is _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_.

In my own opinion, for a film to be deconstructive it would have to
present structures that are assumed to be the structure of reality at
least within the framework of the film.  _Scream_ tried to do this with
the rules of the slasher genre.  However it didn't take the necessary
next step.  The *oppositions* (structure, rules) would have to play
out in such a way that they break down naturally.  _Scream_, by the
way, is an other film people frequently call deconstructive.  But it
isn't because the "rules" of the horror film are only followed
accidentally and aren't really questioned nor do they break down.
Self-awareness of ones genre isn't really sufficient to be
deconstructive.  (IMO)


The ultimate "aim" of deconstructionism is to reach a point where
the opposition breaks down and you no longer can separate the
nature of the players because their nature depends upon unstable
structures.

A closer film to deconstructionism by Eastwood would probably be
_High Plains Drifter_.  There you aren't sure if Eastwood is the
good guy, a guy bent on revenge, an angle, the devil, or what.
It still doesn't go quite far enough to make you question the
divisions (it still adopts a lot of archtypes and respects them
too much).  In many ways it is more ambiguous or nuanced rather
than deconstructive.  (A feature that was in the Leone films, but
was emphasized more in _High Plains Drifter_)


In _Unforgiven_ the author merely took the various structural
pieces of the "western code" and re-arranged them.  None of them
really break down.  All the elements in _Unforgiven_ are treated
with a kind of stability.  It is revisionist, no doubt about it.
It is complex.  But it still follows the basic "code" of the
western.

For instance some have pointed out that the "myth" of the
gunfighter is presented as a myth in the film.  It is shown to
not be real.  Yet the main character, Eastwood, still follows
that myth.  I don't think I agree.  I'd first off say that the
myth is presented in a stable way.  Further the reason we admire
the Eastwood character despite his flaws is because to a degree
he partakes of that myth.  Yet ultimately what is shown is that
there was no real meaning behind the myth.  The myth is a
fiction that we admire, but reality is more complex.  However
people view reality in terms of the myth.  (Consider for instance
the look on the scarred prostitute's face as Eastwood rides out
of town)  But that's not deconstructive.  It is probably
existential, but that is not deconstructionism.  There is a
fixed stable construct between what is "myth" and what is
"reality."  That construct is respected.  That's why the film
has the eastern writer present in the film.  There are all these
stories and then you find out the truth, and it was completely
different.  But there was a truth and that truth was presented
as fixed and in opposition to the myth.  At the end the Hackman
character says,  "I don't deserve to die like this. I was
building a house," to which Eastwood answers, "deserves got
nothing to do with it."  That is the theme through the whole
movie.  It is a truth that the film respects and communicates
in a *consistent* fashion.  There is no instability.

For it to be deconstructive it would question whether we could
ever have a fixed truth like that.  The very division of meaning
/nihlism (and I'll leave for now which side _Unforgiven_ or
_High Plains Drifter_ comes down on) would be itself distrusted
and undercut in a deconstructed play.

The point of deconstructionism is that there is no resolution.
The "outside" which truth describes is never reached.  We have
an argument which never quite deals with its content.

Compare this to something like _Lost Highway_ (if you are
familiar with it, if not the following contains spoilers).
In _Lost Highway_ we have the ultimate example of 1st person
 perspective.  We are granted the perspective of a killer who
"likes to remember things the way he wants to, not the way
they happen."  The film is a never ending highway where Bill
Pullman, the killer, is constantly trying to justify himself
by effectively imagining himself as innocent.  Figures in the
movie come out of his subconsciousness, representing aspects
of his guilt, but he can't escape.  The line between his wife
(whom he killed) as innocent victim or as corrupt femme fatal
deserving death blurs, twists and shifts.  The interpretive
process Pullman partakes of while on death row can't be
escaped.  The metaphor is a shakey dark highway that one
drives down that is actually a moebius strip.  One side is
innocence, the other side corruption.  Yet both are one thing
and you can't escape the loop.  Further the film suggests
that each iteration of the loop is a new creation, a new
re-imagining or justifying of reality.  Yet we never are in
reality.  We are forgiver trapped in this act of creation
that is a kind of delusion.

Now _Lost Highway_ is by no means Lynch's best work, but
those aspects demonstrate some of the deconstructive play.
For instance the Pullman character wakes up while on death
row and is suddenly a different person. The "devil" character
is his conscience convicting him of his crimes, but also his
desires leading him on to his crimes.  It's a very
interesting film for analysis, if not necessarily for
viewing.

The ultimate problem with deconstructionism in film is that
it is difficult to have deconstruction with the
deconstruction of some work.  That's why I think _Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern are Dead_ works as deconstruction.  It is a
deconstruction of _Hamlet_.   Yet it definitely is not in the
realist tradition.   In fact it is almost impossible to do
a deconstructive film in the kind of realist settings that
audiences demand.  _Lost Highway_ did it (to a degree) by
playing with the idea we are all in one persons' head.  It
is the ultimate first person perspective.  _Mulhollan Drive_
does the same thing, only much better, albeit with far less
deconstructive play)  Yet both _ Mulhollan Drive _ and _Lost
Highway_ are very unpopular with audiences because they seem
so weird.  They are not your typical more realist narrative
structures.

Other more deconstructive films have to use elaborate scheme
to work.  _Dark City_ got away with in via science fiction,
as did _The Matrix_ to a more limited extent.  (Although
_The Matrix_ also has a strong religious/fantasy component
and isn't that deconstructive)  _High Plains Drifter_ plays
the religion/supernatural angle as well.

The problem is that deconstructionism is a kind of analysis.
How do you do that kind of analysis in a narrative?  It is
hard.  That's why you can take elements from deconstruction
(i.e. like _Scream_ does) but you can't really go too far,
otherwise audiences will get upset.

Deconstructionism works best as readings of other works.


-- Clark Goble --- [log in to unmask] -----------------------------