----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:30 AM
Subject: 7.6 Thomas's Reply
.:,
.', :. .
.. , ..' : ..
.. '. .. ,. ..: ..
.. .: .'.. ,. . ... F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y
. ' ...,... . . .:. . .
. .. . : ... .'.. ..,.. ISSN 1466-4615
. ., . . :... . . '.. Journal : Salon : Portal
. .'. , : ..... . PO Box 26161, London SW8 4WD
. .:..'...,. . http://www.film-philosophy.com
.. :.,.. '....
....:,. '. vol. 7 no. 6, February 2003
.' :. .
.,'
Deborah Thomas
A Reply to Mogg and Chopra-Gant
Ken Mogg
'Small World: Deborah Thomas's _Beyond Genre_'
_Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 4, February 2003
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n4mogg
Mike Chopra-Gant
'Hollywood Spaces: Deborah Thomas's _Reading Hollywood_'
_Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7 no. 5, February 2003
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n5chopra-gant
Reply to Ken Mogg
While I suppose it is a good thing for one's ideas to provoke such a
forceful and deeply felt response, I am genuinely perplexed at the extent to
which Ken Mogg has personalized his attacks on me in his review and at the
extent of his aggression. Further, many of the points he makes are
subjective and asserted with no evidence given in their support. For
example, 'the theory itself is unexciting', the reading of _An Affair to
Remember_ is 'an ugly reading, a petty reading', and so on. He is, of
course, entitled to these opinions, as well as to the emotive language he
uses throughout, but it is impossible to engage usefully with him when so
little argument is presented in their support. He also ascribes positions to
me which are simply not the case, describing me as 'of a largely theoretical
bent' and in possession of 'essentially an aesthetic temperament'. Although
I present a theoretical framework in the opening chapter and in the summings
up at the end of each subsequent chapter, the heart of the book is in the
detailed criticism of each specific film. In any case, the theoretical
framework is not intended as a hermetically sealed aesthetic one, but as a
look at how American films engage with real social hierarchies of power and
status outside the films, reproducing them in melodramatic films and
transforming them in comedic ones.
Nonetheless, there are a couple of points to which I can respond. Firstly,
Mogg's opening point about the recapitulation of my argument on page 36
seems to indicate that he took that to mean a recapitulation of the overall
argument of the book up to that point. Occurring in the section on _Bigger
Than Life_, it was intended, rather, to pull together what had been argued
about that one film only. He asserts -- and does nothing more than assert --
that the argument is slow to emerge. Once again, that is his opinion and he
is entitled to it, and there is little I can do to counter his claim beyond
suggesting that readers look at what I say in the book and make up their
minds for themselves. Secondly, in a footnote, Mogg asks whether _Psycho_ is
a melodrama or a comedy, claiming that such a question challenges 'the easy
categorisation that Thomas attempts to set up in her book'. And yet it is a
continuing theme within the book that many American films involve a complex
interplay between the two, with few films being wholly one thing or the
other. I argue that the melodramatic and the comedic are general tendencies,
rather than absolute and mutually exclusive categories. On the more specific
issue of _Psycho_, I argue that its narrative world is melodramatic
(dangerous, repressive, malign, and so on), while using 'black humour' to
evoke hollow laughter in the face of such acknowledged melodramatic
qualities. This sort of humour is very different from what I identify as
comedic qualities. Films which make us laugh are not necessarily the same as
what I call comedic films (those which transform their narrative worlds and
characters for the better). Mogg's question about _Psycho_, rather than
challenging my schema, can be readily accommodated within it.
Reply to Mike Chopra-Gant
On the issue of whether some films are more valuable than others, I
certainly stand by my claim that some films reward close examination more
than others. However, I don't see this as necessarily leading to a 'process
of canonization of certain films', a position I explicitly reject in the
conclusion of the book. I am completely open to being convinced by others --
by 'ordinary' viewers as well as academic critics -- that a given film is of
interest, though I reserve my right to offer counter-arguments of my own. It
seems to me crucial that the views of others are tested, rather than taken
on faith, and that we all return to whatever film is at issue in order to
see for ourselves.
University of Sunderland, England
Copyright © Film-Philosophy 2003
Deborah Thomas, 'A Reply to Mogg and Chopra-Gant', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 7
no. 6, February 2003 <http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol7-2003/n6thomas>.
. .. . : ... .'.. ..,..
_Film-Philosophy_ journal texts are published through the email salon (as
well as on the website) so that they can be discussed and contested and
continued by you members, so please send your thoughts to:
[log in to unmask]
. .. . : ... .'.. ..,..
Salon Netiquette:
When hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to -- namely, do not leave old posts underneath your reply (but by
all means quote lines you particularly want to refer to).
Please do not use html or styled formatting when sending messages -- some
members will not be able to read your post, and non-formatted texts take up
less bandwidth and thus download quicker.
Styled formatting can be replaced by a simple ascii text style guide: to
emphasise words *quote with asterisks*; film and book titles should be
marked with underscores -- Deleuze's _Cinema_, Sokurov's _Mother and Son_;
mark titles of articles and all quotations with 'single quotation marks';
and instead of tabs or indents please separate paragraphs with a one line
gap.
When sending a message please check that the subject line reflects the
message content, and is not just one left over from a previous thread or
digest message.
If you have problems unsubscribing, or sending messages generally, then do
not ask for help via the salon, but simply email the owner at:
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
Salon Commands:
To change to digest, send the message: set film-philosophy digest
to: [log in to unmask]
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy
to: [log in to unmask]
. .. . : ... .'.. ..,..
. ., . . :... . . '..
. .'. , : ..... .
. .:..'...,. .
.. :.,.. '....
....:,. '.
.' :. .
.,'
|
