please forgive me for butting in. my name is robert, and the last time i
participated, was during the discussion of kill bill, and i sensed i was
offending some by my crudete, so i unsubscribed, not wanting to roil the
waters any further.
but i couldnt take it, being unsubscribed, and missing out on the
intellectual stimulation such as the below post provides, so i secretly re
subscribed and have been lurking.
this post brought me out.
again, i was kept awake all last night.
twenty one grams blew me away.
and that is what i want to say.
the concept of relevance is acutely measured for me in one simple but
irrefutable way: how many times the movie intrudes on my consciousness
during the night, or those waking moments of lassitude when i am
daydreaming.
i appreciate the concept of having to work to understand an abstruse film
being considered an intrusion, but for me, during the sexual afte glow, that
is the very best.
if i am distubed, the movie, in my sights, was a great success.
if lingering memories hardly intrude in my stream of consciousness, either
waking or sleeping thereafter, the film is dismissive.
i offer this as more of an example of raw data from the field, being a
vietnam vet who has learned to steel his conscious state against arbitrary
wartime intrusions of traumatic events.
so if images and sensations from a film, such as Benicio's haunting stares,
or the final scene of naomi's pregnancy pops up during my regularly fitufl
and distubed sleep...then i know it got to me, and that is the acid test.
why? because it has caused the aftereffect--making me ponder. and this is
what i believe proves films to be the master medium--because they change
lives.
i know i am looking at readjusting my relationship with my half filipino
girl friend after seeing this movie.
please, again, if my comments offend anyone or my english is not so good,
just hit the most powerful button...delete. i really dont want to argue,
just love to see the in vivo development of ideas.
best to all
robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Buckland, Warren" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:04 PM
Subject: Principle of relevance
Ross and Mike have raised some very interesting points about the theory
of relevance, which I outlined yesterday. Here I try to offer a few
pointers to their queries.
I agree that we should not reach the conclusion that spectators always
abide by the principle of relevance in comprehending films. This
principle simply expresses a rational norm that enables spectators to
construct a film's literal meaning.
Ambiguous films block the spectator's ability to construct a literal
meaning; they therefore block the principle of relevance, because
spectators need to increase their processing effort to determine (if
there is) a literal meaning to the ambiguous film (or scene). If the
ambiguity is resolved, then spectators have still abided by the
principle of relevance, but they had to increase their processing effort
for the same contextual effect. This is why some Art films are hard to
watch.
A different form of blocking of the principle of relevance occurs in
specialized groups spectators such as auteur critics, who prefer to
select different cues and experience a different structure than
non-auteur critics. To read a film for its authorial structures, rather
than simply for the film's literal meaning, is a non-relevance
determined strategy preferred by auteur critics. Auteur critics prefer
to go beyond the principle of relevance to concentrate on what the
filmmaker is not literally conveying.
We can draw an analogy with the choice readers face when confronted with
an ironic or allegorical text. Some readers may interpret the text
literally (by automatically following the principle of relevance), while
others are able to comprehend it figuratively (by increasing processing
effort).
Warren Buckland
Associate Professor, Film Studies
Chapman University
School of Film and Television
One University Drive
Orange
CA 92866
USA.
phone: (714) 744 7018
fax: (714) 997 6700
Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies":
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
*
*
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.
**
*
*
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.
**
|