Yes - brilliant!
I was wondering if anyone could help me with something I'm researching, I'm
writing an article on films and humanity and wondered if people might be
able to suggest any films they know of that have people in them.
Obviously this is not an exercise in simply constructing lists (which is
after all great fun!!! :) as well as being serious :( ), but I'm perhaps
going to talk about some 'theoretical' issues too, like, er, people as
central to history.
Thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Read" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Train Films--but WHY??
> I welcome Mike Frank's admonition against the listing of subject
> matter in films but largely because it prompted Serge's generous
> rejoinder which relieved the guilt of those who were enjoying the
> creative free fall which scanning collective memory for train films
> clearly entails. True, one might go beyond list-making, for which the
> instinct must pervade the film industry (think of those whose job it
> is to collect costumes, locations, filmic precedents), but, with
> respect, how restrictively conformist to exclude it from the
> reception process. And why shouldn't subject matter be significant in
> films, along with everything else? Is it not a starting point for
> many film-makers, entailing a fascination that will help determine
> what kind of film they will make? As an opening thought it seems a
> lot more interesting to suggest that films are a symbol of modernity
> than to assume they are never anything in particular. Thus lists open
> up useful distinctions, as is becoming obvious in several responses,
> including all of Martin O'Shaughnessy's and maybe Mike Frank's about
> index versus symbol. Not that I agree with his austere insistence
> that entries on a list must be accompanied by interpretations or with
> Richard Armstrong that those entries, though welcome, are just
> low-brow relief. They exercise a different part of the brain and give
> food for later thought, including the longer lists which are emerging
> to expose the arbitrariness of over-arching interpretations. As long
> as one is limber about its limits, why reject any method of research,
> especially one that's obvious and easy? Viva philosophy but avaunt ye
> ideological strictures and puritanical blind spots.
>
> Richard.
>
>
> as for example that NIGHTMAIL might be a different train film from
> most of the others, though sharing the reflexive film qualities that
> many possess.
>
> Richard.
>
>
> > > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
understand
> >this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
> >
> >--B_3167636494_372636
> >Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> >It seems to me that a number of the posts on this topic have tried to
engag=
> >e
> >with the fascination that trains on film have held for people for the
last
> >109 years or so, especially the posts by Melissa, Catalin, Amaresh and
> >Richard. All added some insight beyond help in compiling a list =AD which
is
> >in my opinion a useful starting point to help stimulate people=B9s minds
=AD
> >invoking Procrustes=B9 habit of stretching or shortening people to suit
his
> >own cruel and rather monolithic view of proportion seems exaggerated =AD
a
> >list of films is clearly a very good place to start if one wants to lay
the
> >groundwork before discussing film, isn=B9t it? Personally, I=B9m
surprised
> >no-one=B9s mentioned NIGHTMAIL, about which there is rather a lot of
> >literature looking at the way that railway transport, poetry recital,
words
> >and music combined to fulfil public service goals in depression Britain.
> >
> >To insist that some discussion threads are more deserving than others
> >strikes me as being a little more akin to what Theseus=B9 near nemesis
had in
> >mind when he told him about his one-size-fits-all bed, than what this
threa=
> >d
> >has actually produced.
> >
> >
> >Sergio
> >
> >***
> >
> >> the editor reminds us not to flame others, and rightly so . . . but
> >> i hope a complaint/plea to the list as a whole will not seem out
> >> of line or out of place
> >>=20
> >> i'm somewhere between annoyed and appalled at the response to
> >> the 'films with trains' thread, while other more substantial threads
> >> get no attention at all . . . this is, after all the 'film &
PHILOSOPHY'
> >> salon, and one would imagine that some conceptual/theoretical or
> >> philosophical dimension would play a role in most posts . . . instead
> >> it's becoming an indulgence for trivia buffs [*hey!!, how many films
> >> can you think of with trains??*] . . . and with one notable exception
> > > none of these posts raised so much as a single speculation about what
> >> the trains meant, or how they worked, or what cinematic or formal
> >> or narrative purpose they served, or what cultural premises they
> >> betrayed -- or, god save us, ANYTHING at all except for the fact that
> >> there was a train in the damned movie -- so that early lumiere and
> >> late hitchcock end up sharing the same Procrustean bed and to no
> >> special purpose=20
> >>=20
> >> please, what's going on?? . . . and whatever it is, how do we stop
it??
> >>=20
> >> mike * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply'
pl=
> >ease
> > > 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
emai=
> >l:
> >> [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.
> >**
> >
> >--B_3167636494_372636
> >Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> ><HTML>
> ><HEAD>
> ><TITLE>Re: Train Films--but WHY??</TITLE>
> ></HEAD>
> ><BODY>
> ><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana">It seems to me that a number of the posts on this
topi=
> >c have tried to engage with the fascination that trains on film have held
fo=
> >r people for the last 109 years or so, especially the posts by Melissa,
Cata=
> >lin, Amaresh and Richard. All added some insight beyond help in compiling
a =
> >list – which is in my opinion a useful starting point to help
stimulat=
> >e people’s minds – invoking Procrustes’ habit of
stretchin=
> >g or shortening people to suit his own cruel and rather monolithic view
of p=
> >roportion seems exaggerated – a list of films is clearly a very
good p=
> >lace to start if one wants to lay the groundwork before discussing film,
isn=
> >’t it? Personally, I’m surprised no-one’s mentioned
NIGHTM=
> >AIL, about which there is rather a lot of literature looking at the way
that=
> > railway transport, poetry recital, words and music combined to fulfil
publi=
> >c service goals in depression Britain.<BR>
> ><BR>
> >To insist that some discussion threads are more deserving than others
strik=
> >es me as being a little more akin to what Theseus’ near nemesis had
in=
> > mind when he told him about his one-size-fits-all bed, than what this
threa=
> >d has actually produced.<BR>
> ><BR>
> ><BR>
> >Sergio<BR>
> ><BR>
> >***<BR>
> ><BR>
> ></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><FONT SIZE=3D"2">the
> >editor reminds u=
> >s not to flame others, and rightly so . . . but</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">i hope a complaint/plea to the list as a whole will not
seem=
> > out</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">of line or out of place</FONT> <BR>
> ><BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">i'm somewhere between annoyed and appalled at the
response t=
> >o</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">the 'films with trains' thread, while other more
subst=
> >antial threads</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">get no attention at all . . . this is, after all the
'film &=
> >amp; PHILOSOPHY'</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">salon, and one would imagine that some
conceptual/theoretica=
> >l or</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">philosophical dimension would play a role in most posts
. . =
> >. instead</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">it's becoming an indulgence for trivia buffs [*hey!!,
how ma=
> >ny films</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">can you think of with trains??*] . . . and with
one no=
> >table exception</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">none of these posts raised so much as a single
speculation a=
> >bout what <BR>
> >the trains meant, or how they worked, or what cinematic or formal</FONT>
<B=
> >R>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">or narrative purpose they served, or what cultural
premises =
> >they</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">betrayed -- or, god save us, ANYTHING at all except for
the =
> >fact that</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">there was a train in the damned movie -- so that
early=
> > lumiere and</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">late hitchcock end up sharing the same Procrustean bed
and t=
> >o no</FONT> <BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">special purpose</FONT> <BR>
> ><BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">please, what's going on?? . . . and whatever it
is, ho=
> >w do we stop it??</FONT> <BR>
> ><BR>
> ><FONT SIZE=3D"2">mike</FONT> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
Afte=
> >r hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
reply=
> >ing to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
jiscmail@jiscm=
> >ail.ac.uk. For help email: [log in to unmask], not
the s=
> >alon. **<BR>
> ></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Verdana"><BR>
> ></FONT>
> ></BODY>
> ></HTML>
> >
> >*
> >*
> >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.
> >**
> >
> >--B_3167636494_372636--
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> M433
> Dr Richard Read Email [log in to unmask]
> Associate Professor
> Faculty of Architecture Landscape & Visual Arts
> The University of Western Australia
> CRAWLEY WA 6009 Tel +61 8 9380 2140
> Australia Fax 8 9380 1082
>
> The University of Western Australia: CRICOS Provider No. 00126G
>
> *
> *
> 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.
**
|
