-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Automatic digest processor
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:51 PM
To: Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests
Subject: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 17 Oct 2003 - Special issue (#2003-321)
There are 5 messages totalling 765 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL] (4)
2. vacuity of horror films (was: kill bill beyond humanization)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:38:45 -0400
From: "Martha P. Nochimson" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL]
I think this is close to what I mean. Let us imagine I have had a
wonderful day, as I actually have had. I want to express this. I can just
state it flat out as above. Or I don't say it at all. As a result of my
exuberance, I am suddenly more aware of the wonderful things about you and
I say so. Perhaps you catch my state of elevated spirits. Which is the
more piercing, more precise statement of exhilaration? Now let us imagine
that I have had a shattering experience, as I did when I saw S 21 The Khmer
Rouge: The Killing Machine, a documentary, at the New York Film
Festival. I will be discussing it in my review of NYFF for this salon
shortly. And it will be a challenge to do so, because I could hardly
breathe, let alone speak after seeing this film. Indeed, nothing I say
will satisfy me. But. What if I say it obliquely, the foundation
principle of poetry and all art as I think? Is this not a form of thought
that breaks the cramped barriers of ordinary language and logic, as well as
the confines of all socially learned cliches that make it impossible for us
to actually confront the most intense realities of our lives?
I have not seen Kill Bill, (I do intend to), so I do not
know that it
will become a liberating experience, but Robert Andrew suggests that
something like this did happen to him. I am also constantly confronted by
folks who can't understand what David Lynch is doing in his work, and
Lynch's movies are certainly examples of a poet who permits us to keep our
sanity by thinking the unthinkable in the largest sense.
Martha
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:05:04 -0400
From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL]
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 006365BC85256DC2_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
i feel like one of those poe narrators who begins his
story with the assertion "i am, as everyone knows, the
most mild mannered of men" and then goes on to
prove that he's a class A maniac
i usually maintain an even keel in reading these responses
and can see where a variety of opinions come from and
what validity they might have . . . so i surprised myself by
becoming really angry at martha's latest message, especially
when i so much admire the quarter from which it comes
then it occurred to me that perhaps what we have here is
a failure to communicate on a simple lexical level . . . the
specific question at hand is whether horror [or perhaps
we should say "good" horror because presumably not all
horror works this way] allows its audience to think the
unthinkable . . . and it seems to me that we should reserve
the word "think" in this context to that which takes place
in what martha calls "cramped barriers of ordinary language and
logic" . . . i have no doubt that there are important spaces
that are not enclosed by these barriers --perhaps the most
important spaces lie outside these barriers . . . but please,
please let's save the word "think" for what goes on inside
these barriers -- just so we can understand each other
similarly, while i'm not at all sure that saying things obliquely
is "the foundation principle of poetry and all art" i'm pretty well
convinced that the issue here is not whether art expresses
the unspeakable obliquely but whether that oblique
expression allows most viewers to then think the unthinkable
finally -- and here i think the argument is substantive rather
than merely terminological -- i'm baffled by the claim that
"David . . . Lynch's movies are certainly examples of a poet who
permits us to keep our sanity by thinking the unthinkable in the
largest sense" . . . i've been thinking, or trying to think about,
and teaching lynch films since i first saw BLUE VELVET and
more and more the only thing they allow me to conclude
is that he's a self-indulgent poseur
none of this is to deny the validity of what robert andrew
says; if he claims that seeing KB allowed him to free himself
of some dangerous demons i take that as a matter of fact
. . . having never been trained to fight, much less in anything
as nasty as nam, i cannot possibly know what such films do
to him, or to other members of the audience for that matter
but if films like these allow us to THINK the unthinkable then i
would like someone to explain what this thinking is, and
how it works
mike
PS-- i feel defensive enough to add that i remain someone
who "enjoys" much horror -- if choosing to see something
is some indication of "enjoyment" . . . it's not the value of
horror that's being argued; it's the idea that horror allows
a special kind of insight
--=_alternative 006365BC85256DC2_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">i feel like one of
those poe narrators who begins his</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">story with the
assertion "i am, as everyone knows, the </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">most mild mannered of
men" and then goes on to </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">prove that he's a
class A maniac</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">i usually maintain an
even keel in reading these responses</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">and can see where a
variety of opinions come from and</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">what validity they
might have . . . so i surprised myself by</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">becoming really angry
at martha's latest message, especially</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">when i so much admire
the quarter from which it comes</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">then it occurred to me
that perhaps what we have here is </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">a failure to
communicate on a simple lexical level . . . the</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">specific question at
hand is whether horror [or perhaps </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">we should say
"good" horror because presumably not all</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">horror works this way]
allows its audience to think the</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">unthinkable . . . and
it seems to me that we should reserve</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">the word
"think" in this context to that which takes place</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">in what martha calls
</font><font size=2><tt> "cramped barriers of ordinary language
and </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>logic"</tt></font><font size=2 color=#6000a1
face="Century Gothic"> . . . i have no doubt that there are important spaces
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">that are not enclosed
by these barriers --perhaps the most</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">important spaces lie
outside these barriers . . . but please, </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">please let's save the
word "think" for what goes on inside</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">these barriers -- just
so we can understand each other</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">similarly, while i'm
not at all sure that saying things obliquely</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">is </font><font
size=2><tt>"the foundation principle of poetry and all
art"</tt></font><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic"> i'm
pretty well </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">convinced that the
issue here is not whether art expresses</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">the unspeakable
obliquely but whether that oblique</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">expression allows most
viewers to then think the unthinkable</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">finally -- and here i
think the argument is substantive rather</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">than merely
terminological -- i'm baffled by the claim that</font>
<br><font size=2><tt>"David . . . Lynch's movies are certainly examples
of a poet who </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>permits us to keep our sanity by thinking the
unthinkable in the </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>largest sense" . </tt></font><font size=2
color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">. . i've been thinking, or trying to
think about,</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">and teaching lynch
films since i first saw BLUE VELVET and</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">more and more the only
thing they allow me to conclude </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">is that he's a
self-indulgent poseur</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">none of this is to deny
the validity of what robert andrew</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">says; if he claims that
seeing <b><i>KB </i></b>allowed him to free himself</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">of some dangerous
demons i take that as a matter of fact</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">. . . having never been
trained to fight, much less in anything</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">as nasty as nam, i
cannot possibly know what such films do</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">to him, or to other
members of the audience for that matter</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">but if films like these
allow us to THINK the unthinkable then i</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">would like someone to
explain what this thinking is, and </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">how it works</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">mike</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">PS-- i feel defensive
enough to add that i remain someone</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">who "enjoys"
much horror -- if choosing to see something</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">is some indication of
"enjoyment" . . . it's not the value of</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">horror that's being
argued; it's the idea that horror allows</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">a special kind of
insight </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic"> </font>
--=_alternative 006365BC85256DC2_=--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:11:46 -0500
From: Aaron Smuts <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: vacuity of horror films (was: kill bill beyond humanization)
It's not clear why we need to defend horror on any basis besides the
experience it provides, though it can certainly be defended on other
grounds. An effective horror film seems justification enough.
Andrew starts several arguments against horror in his post, but none of
them promise to be any good.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Lesk
I do not
> advocate
> censorship or self-censorship; rather, just a greater awareness of
things
> that
> have more to do with profit and capitalism than they do with the
thinking
> person and, dare I say, entertainment.
I'm not clear what the argument is here. Is it that art cannot be
profitable? Or that profit motives necessarily, not just sometimes,
hurt art? I don't see why either of these would be the case. If so,
then all commissioned paintings must be bad. David Bordwell addresses
this in his Planet Hong Kong pp. 5-6. He makes a distinction between
profit driven and market-oriented that may be useful if someone wants
this continue this art must be autonomous line of thinking and beat the
position to death.
Horror films strike me as a kind
> of
> lowest-common-denominator: a lazy way to make a point,
I don't understand this. It sounds like the LCD argument against mass
art. The argument that fails to see that the profit motive encourages
mass art to be produced for multiple audiences, and if anything move
towards a middle ground so as not to alienate the largest portion of the
audience. Carroll examines the LCD argument in A Philosophy of Mass
Art.
and in this they
> strike
> me as deeply anti-intellectual (and yes, that is a comment on
American-
> inspired
> consumerism).
I don't understand this either. Is this the idea that not being
intellectual is somehow anti-intellectual. This seems silly. I'm
really not sure what's at issue here.
Aaron Smuts
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:52:32 -0400
From: robert andrew <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C394BE.4B3E7F70
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
this may sound stupid,
but the way it works for me
i think
sorry
is that there is a continuous unconscious program of violence
running in the back of my mind
imprinted there by certain pieces of brain matter spattered about, or a =
human being twelve feet long after being cut surically in half by an =
m-60 machine gun.
now i worked very hard for thrity years to repress all that
using booze
drugs
sex
but not movies
rambo brought those programs out and put them on the screen for me
so i could think the unthinkable
kb does the same
although it is not thinking
far too gratuituous a word for me.
much closer to some kind of visceal scream that stays constipated.
every time i come out of a violent movie i feel more violent.
and somehow safely manage to work it out
without killing anybody
or even harming a flea
all those thirty years i repressed
i took it out on myself and others in very destructive forms of =
behavior.
for me, the work has been to make the unconscioius conscious.
kb et does that graphically for me, as does the genre in general.
but even more so...the patina of artistic sheen added to such works as =
quentins's...somehow allows me to honor the very vehicle....to value =
death...to free it from of the closet of western repression...and face =
the bare fact of my own worm ridden demise...
and recognize that all our palty daily activities...are really mere =
efforts to deny the finality of our existence.
the west works hard to cover death. =20
the east to uncover it. and then integrate, culturally, the incubus, in =
a much more holistitic fashion, imho.
i hope this helps. i had best shut up=20
before my alligator mouth overloads my humming bird ass.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Mike Frank=20
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL]
i feel like one of those poe narrators who begins his=20
story with the assertion "i am, as everyone knows, the=20
most mild mannered of men" and then goes on to=20
prove that he's a class A maniac=20
i usually maintain an even keel in reading these responses=20
and can see where a variety of opinions come from and=20
what validity they might have . . . so i surprised myself by=20
becoming really angry at martha's latest message, especially=20
when i so much admire the quarter from which it comes=20
then it occurred to me that perhaps what we have here is=20
a failure to communicate on a simple lexical level . . . the=20
specific question at hand is whether horror [or perhaps=20
we should say "good" horror because presumably not all=20
horror works this way] allows its audience to think the=20
unthinkable . . . and it seems to me that we should reserve=20
the word "think" in this context to that which takes place=20
in what martha calls "cramped barriers of ordinary language and=20
logic" . . . i have no doubt that there are important spaces=20
that are not enclosed by these barriers --perhaps the most=20
important spaces lie outside these barriers . . . but please,=20
please let's save the word "think" for what goes on inside=20
these barriers -- just so we can understand each other=20
similarly, while i'm not at all sure that saying things obliquely=20
is "the foundation principle of poetry and all art" i'm pretty well=20
convinced that the issue here is not whether art expresses=20
the unspeakable obliquely but whether that oblique=20
expression allows most viewers to then think the unthinkable=20
finally -- and here i think the argument is substantive rather=20
than merely terminological -- i'm baffled by the claim that=20
"David . . . Lynch's movies are certainly examples of a poet who=20
permits us to keep our sanity by thinking the unthinkable in the=20
largest sense" . . . i've been thinking, or trying to think about,=20
and teaching lynch films since i first saw BLUE VELVET and=20
more and more the only thing they allow me to conclude=20
is that he's a self-indulgent poseur=20
none of this is to deny the validity of what robert andrew=20
says; if he claims that seeing KB allowed him to free himself=20
of some dangerous demons i take that as a matter of fact=20
. . . having never been trained to fight, much less in anything=20
as nasty as nam, i cannot possibly know what such films do=20
to him, or to other members of the audience for that matter=20
but if films like these allow us to THINK the unthinkable then i=20
would like someone to explain what this thinking is, and=20
how it works=20
mike=20
PS-- i feel defensive enough to add that i remain someone=20
who "enjoys" much horror -- if choosing to see something=20
is some indication of "enjoyment" . . . it's not the value of=20
horror that's being argued; it's the idea that horror allows=20
a special kind of insight=20
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C394BE.4B3E7F70
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>this may sound =
stupid,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>but the way it works =
for=20
me</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>i think</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>sorry</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>is that there is a =
continuous=20
unconscious program of violence</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>running in the back of =
my=20
mind</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>imprinted there by =
certain pieces of=20
brain matter spattered about, or a human being twelve feet long after =
being cut=20
surically in half by an m-60 machine gun.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>now i worked very hard =
for thrity=20
years to repress all that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>using =
booze</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>drugs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>sex</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>but not =
movies</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>rambo =
brought those programs out=20
and put them on the screen for me</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>so i could think the=20
unthinkable</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>kb does the =
same</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>although it is not=20
thinking</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>far too gratuituous a =
word for=20
me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>much closer to some =
kind of visceal=20
scream that stays constipated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>every time i come out =
of a violent=20
movie i feel more violent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>and somehow safely =
manage to work it=20
out</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>without killing =
anybody</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>or even harming a =
flea</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>all those thirty years =
i=20
repressed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>i took it out on myself =
and others in=20
very destructive forms of behavior.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>for me, the work has =
been to make the=20
unconscioius conscious.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>kb et does that =
graphically for=20
me, as does the genre in general.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>but even more so...the =
patina of=20
artistic sheen added to such works as quentins's...somehow allows me to =
honor=20
the very vehicle....to value death...to free it from of the =
closet of=20
western repression...and face the bare fact of my own worm ridden=20
demise...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>and recognize that =
all our palty=20
daily activities...are really mere efforts to deny the finality of our=20
existence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2> the west works =
hard to cover=20
death. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>the east to uncover =
it. and=20
then integrate, culturally, the incubus, in a much more holistitic =
fashion,=20
imho.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>i hope this =
helps. i had best=20
shut up </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>before my alligator =
mouth overloads=20
my humming bird ass.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [log in to unmask] href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">Mike =
Frank</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
[log in to unmask]
=
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
C.UK</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 17, 2003 =
2:05=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: NAM VET thinking =
the=20
unthinkable [was KILL BILL]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>i feel=20
like one of those poe narrators who begins his</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>story with the =
assertion "i am, as=20
everyone knows, the </FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>most mild mannered of men" and then goes on to =
</FONT><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>prove that he's =
a class A=20
maniac</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>i=20
usually maintain an even keel in reading these responses</FONT> =
<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>and can see where a =
variety of=20
opinions come from and</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>what validity they might have . . . so i surprised =
myself=20
by</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>becoming really=20
angry at martha's latest message, especially</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>when i so much admire =
the quarter=20
from which it comes</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>then it occurred to me that perhaps what we have here is=20
</FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>a =
failure to=20
communicate on a simple lexical level . . . the</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>specific question at =
hand is=20
whether horror [or perhaps </FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>we should say "good" horror because =
presumably not=20
all</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>horror works=20
this way] allows its audience to think the</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>unthinkable . . . and =
it seems to=20
me that we should reserve</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>the word "think" in this context to that which takes =
place</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>in what =
martha calls=20
</FONT><FONT size=3D2><TT> "cramped barriers of ordinary language =
and=20
</TT></FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2><TT>logic"</TT></FONT><FONT =
face=3D"Century Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2> . . . i have no doubt that there are =
important spaces=20
</FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>that =
are not=20
enclosed by these barriers --perhaps the most</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>important spaces lie =
outside these=20
barriers . . . but please, </FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>please let's save the word "think" for what =
goes on=20
inside</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>these=20
barriers -- just so we can understand each other</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>similarly, while i'm =
not at all=20
sure that saying things obliquely</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century =
Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>is </FONT><FONT size=3D2><TT>"the foundation =
principle of=20
poetry and all art"</TT></FONT><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2> i'm pretty well </FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>convinced that the issue here is not whether art =
expresses</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>the =
unspeakable obliquely=20
but whether that oblique</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>expression allows most viewers to then think the =
unthinkable</FONT>=20
<BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>finally =
-- and here i=20
think the argument is substantive rather</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>than merely =
terminological -- i'm=20
baffled by the claim that</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2><TT>"David . . . =
Lynch's=20
movies are certainly examples of a poet who </TT></FONT><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2><TT>permits us to keep our sanity by thinking the unthinkable =
in the=20
</TT></FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2><TT>largest sense" . </TT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>. . i've been =
thinking, or trying=20
to think about,</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>and teaching lynch films since i first saw BLUE VELVET =
and</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>more and =
more the only=20
thing they allow me to conclude </FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century =
Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>is that he's a self-indulgent poseur</FONT> =
<BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>none of this is to =
deny the=20
validity of what robert andrew</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century =
Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>says; if he claims that seeing <B><I>KB =
</I></B>allowed=20
him to free himself</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>of some dangerous demons i take that as a matter of =
fact</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>. . . =
having never been=20
trained to fight, much less in anything</FONT> <BR><FONT =
face=3D"Century Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>as nasty as nam, i cannot possibly know what =
such films=20
do</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>to him, or to=20
other members of the audience for that matter</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>but if films like =
these allow us to=20
THINK the unthinkable then i</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>would like someone to explain what this =
thinking is, and=20
</FONT><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>how =
it=20
works</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>mike</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" =
color=3D#6000a1=20
size=3D2>PS-- i feel defensive enough to add that i remain =
someone</FONT>=20
<BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>who =
"enjoys" much horror=20
-- if choosing to see something</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century =
Gothic"=20
color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>is some indication of "enjoyment" . . . it's =
not the=20
value of</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2>horror=20
that's being argued; it's the idea that horror allows</FONT> <BR><FONT =
face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 size=3D2>a special kind of =
insight=20
</FONT><BR><BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Century Gothic" color=3D#6000a1 =
size=3D2> =20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C394BE.4B3E7F70--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:50:52 -0400
From: "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL]
Mike:
First, about David Lynch. Mulholland Drive is a great film from my =
perspective, in part because it compels you think about it...the =
narrative thread is so skewed that you can only make sense of it by =
doing so. Freudian critics have pointed out that it makes perfect sense =
if you read most of the film as a dream of the main character, a =
wish-fulfillment in the face of a very discouraging actual world. In =
Robin Wood's sense, this is also a subversive film, just as Bertolt =
Brecht sought to subvert linear narrative for more explicitly political =
ends.=20
Blue Velvet is Lynch's masterpiece, in no small measure because of =
how it reenacts the primal scene, and the transition from boyhood to =
manhood, in allegorical fashion. In the absence of the good father, the =
protagonist takes a walk on the wild side. Dennis Hopper is the bad =
father that the Kyle McLaughlin character gets to slay, and there is no =
better (or more critical) film on the subject of scopophilia (our =
pleasure in watching), except perhaps Rear Window.
I am not a Freudian, yet I wonder what the knock on catharsis is, =
if, like Aristotle, one believes that cathartic experiences make us less =
(and not more) likely to act out our forbidden desires in real life. As =
the Nixon commission on pornography concluded, male sex offenders were =
less exposed to pornography than the average man; there might be a lot =
to be said for catharsis.
But apart from that debate, both Science Fiction and Horror have =
attracted philosophical types from their inception as literary genres, =
because the hypothetical scenarios in which both deal are perfect venues =
for philosophical inquiry. And if most of the viewers miss these =
nuances, part of what I am trying to do in my film classes is make my =
students more self-conscious viewers (and I use Robin Wood as one of my =
role models in that regard). =20
Dan
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon on behalf of Mike Frank
Sent: Fri 10/17/2003 2:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:=09
Subject: Re: NAM VET thinking the unthinkable [was KILL BILL]
i feel like one of those poe narrators who begins his
story with the assertion "i am, as everyone knows, the
most mild mannered of men" and then goes on to
prove that he's a class A maniac
i usually maintain an even keel in reading these responses
and can see where a variety of opinions come from and
what validity they might have . . . so i surprised myself by
becoming really angry at martha's latest message, especially
when i so much admire the quarter from which it comes
then it occurred to me that perhaps what we have here is
a failure to communicate on a simple lexical level . . . the
specific question at hand is whether horror [or perhaps
we should say "good" horror because presumably not all
horror works this way] allows its audience to think the
unthinkable . . . and it seems to me that we should reserve
the word "think" in this context to that which takes place
in what martha calls "cramped barriers of ordinary language and
logic" . . . i have no doubt that there are important spaces
that are not enclosed by these barriers --perhaps the most
important spaces lie outside these barriers . . . but please,
please let's save the word "think" for what goes on inside
these barriers -- just so we can understand each other
similarly, while i'm not at all sure that saying things obliquely
is "the foundation principle of poetry and all art" i'm pretty well
convinced that the issue here is not whether art expresses
the unspeakable obliquely but whether that oblique
expression allows most viewers to then think the unthinkable
finally -- and here i think the argument is substantive rather
than merely terminological -- i'm baffled by the claim that
"David . . . Lynch's movies are certainly examples of a poet who
permits us to keep our sanity by thinking the unthinkable in the
largest sense" . . . i've been thinking, or trying to think about,
and teaching lynch films since i first saw BLUE VELVET and
more and more the only thing they allow me to conclude
is that he's a self-indulgent poseur
none of this is to deny the validity of what robert andrew
says; if he claims that seeing KB allowed him to free himself
of some dangerous demons i take that as a matter of fact
. . . having never been trained to fight, much less in anything
as nasty as nam, i cannot possibly know what such films do
to him, or to other members of the audience for that matter
but if films like these allow us to THINK the unthinkable then i
would like someone to explain what this thinking is, and
how it works
mike
PS-- i feel defensive enough to add that i remain someone
who "enjoys" much horror -- if choosing to see something
is some indication of "enjoyment" . . . it's not the value of
horror that's being argued; it's the idea that horror allows
a special kind of insight
------------------------------
End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 17 Oct 2003 - Special issue (#2003-321)
***********************************************************************
|
