The excitement of waiting for a convincing application of Peircian
semiotics to film studies certainly justified those who, without a
hint of smugness, took credit for closing down the train thread,
whose infantile listings of films that people had actually seen
profoundly alienated the 800 people whom Warren officially
represents. Now talk of the holocaust and symbols that pre-exist
representation in film threatens to rekindle it from the decadent
angle of what can ONLY be inferred as people-orientated Humanism. At
least the road-movie thread was almost knotted at birth. What Warren
means - and I speak for him as he speaks for us - is that the raw
sewerage of examples that lower mortals dispose of, must be processed
into ideas within discrete postings, not left to contaminate
problems, issues and questions raised in other, more considered and
hygienic postings. And lest this good-natured pomo moaning of mine be
deviously misconstrued as an angry phallologocentric crisis in
intellectual formations successfully rehearsing 'the turn' since well
into the 1980s, remember that Foucault soon recovered from his
gormless wonder at the list that opened his juvenile work on the
Order of Things. Let there be no confusion, no serendipity. It's a
simple matter of an absolute division between mutts who remember
things and those who can think, or at least point at thinking. Or
we'll set the dogs on you. Playfully of course...:) And now, at last,
a rigorous Peircian account of film please ...
With the zeal of an expectant convert,
Richard Read
--
*
*
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.
**
|