___ Richard ____
| By the way, I don't think Derrida simply 'carr[ies] on this
| approach of Levinas' (Clark, 03 June). The relation is more
| complicated than that:
___
I agree and also agree that Derrida heavily criticized Levinas. Perhaps to
clarify I should say that I think "carrying on an approach" doesn't mean
that one does so in the same fashion as the originator. For instance I'd
argue that many that followed Heidegger - such as Ricouer, Gadamer,
Merleu-Ponty and others - carried on his approach. Yet at the same time
there are significant difference.
Further criticizing Levinas' reading (and lets face it, many of Levinas'
readings are wrong) doesn't necessarily imply a huge break with methodology.
Just that Levinas is often a poor exegesis.
So I didn't mean to convey more than the general approach Derrida takes
which seems that of both Levinas and Heidegger in many ways.
___ Richard ___
| a tree hasn't been painted (once again, usually...!), it
| 'is' a tree; a battle - well, that's an interesting one,
| of course: the battle-scenes in _Saving Private Ryan_ aren't
| 'real' battles, but the images we see - give or take the odd
| digitally-manipulated amputated body part - did 'take place'
| (even if we take into account the discontinuities of the
| entire shooting-editing process).
___
I agree with what you say. The objects of the work have a "content" which
involves an excess beyond how the object is used in the film. Thus the tree
in terms of the role it plays in a scene is much more than just that
function.
However where I think I'd differ is that I think this occurs in general
texts as well. (This is the basis of my disagreement with Doyle) Let us
assume a historical novel to avoid the issues you mention above. If I
mention Omaha beach in a novel about D-Day, how does the beach in film have
excess in a way that the beach in the novel does? Perhaps the film uses
more objects that aren't directly referenced. They are the "extras" to
apply the term used for non-essential actors. But it seems the same thing
is going on.
So my question would be, relative to a film, how does this make a film
different? I admit we use these "real" objects as a content for the main
narration. However the distinction with regular texts means that the
context either supplied by a text or brought to the text in the act of
interpretation also makes use of real objects as well.
-- Clark Goble --- [log in to unmask] -----------------------------
|