Thanks for the snip of the thread. Very interesting.

Regarding Unforgiven, I hope to comment at a later date.

My question at this point involves The Matrix and Dark City. Based on the
criteria below I fail to see how either could be considered Deconstruction.

I can't help but think (and this may seem like an easy shot) that Allens
Deconstructing Harry holds up to many of the rules regarding the same.
Allen works around the stories he tells and at one point simply admits the
character is the author -  constantly blurring the line between his art and
his life.
In the end, with a tip of the hat toward Fellini's 8 1/2, Allen meets all
the characters of the film (the only way he can truly face them) who give
him a standing ovation.

Cole.
www.maniccinema.com


>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] -----------------------------