In a message dated 1/29/04 9:50:31 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< so the question may not be whether a detail has a reason, only
whether that reason is readable as part of an interpretive strategy >>
mike, damian
I think that learning to read, is a process which just goes on and on 'cause
there are always new things, and new kinds of things to read. also what's
readable is, i think a wildly variable condition, not only do different people
read things differently, but we can and often do, turn things over in our minds,
reading them this way and that, in retrospect and in conversation. another
variable has to do with how the word read sort of constricts the situation to
fewer levels of meaning, because most of the stuff in movies is felt as much as
read. how did you feel about the missing leg? was it in your face? context
and meaning style are as important in how things are read as the details
themselves.
When you think of the difference in fonts or book jackets, you can say: sure
it means the same thing, but something's gained, somethings lost. it might be
illuminating to discuss... but if you think of two prints of a film that have
been color timed differently...
by the by, it's not the fonts that get me but the browser dependent variables
that are killer for reading - i can suck the meaning out of the interchange,
but my browser kind of makes it like dumpster diving for pearls.
is the phrase:
<<readable as part of an interpretive strategy >> a way of getting at
something, or does it represent an approach?
and also can you give me publisher for tom conley, and any other info that
might help locating?
many thanks.
dan
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|