I'm frankly appalled by the underlying assumptions in this discussion. Most
of them derive from the suspicion/dislike of illusionism typical of the
political modernists of the 60s and 70s who conveniently ignored the
complexity and subtly of many Hollywood films (Ray? Hitch? Minnelli? Sirk?
Even Ford for Christ sake) in favour of formal innovation (often favouring
the most politically banal experimental and agit-prop movies). Furthermore,
in current age where the human subject is frequently depicted as a weak
victim at the mercy of forces beyond their control we could do with a lot
more robust individualism. After all without a coherent human agency, how is
it possible to change the world or effect any kind of political
intervention?
Dr Jason Jacobs
Senior Lecturer
School of Arts, Media and Culture
Griffith University
Nathan Campus
Queensland 4111
Australia
Phone: (07) 3875 5164
Fax: (07) 3875 7730
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2005 12:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Film is a conservative medium?
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 004EAA1A85257004_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
ross writes:
>No medium, or genre or for that matter 'Hollywood' is inherently
>conservative, nor does a concern with isolated individual heros
necessarily
>imply conservative ideology, nor does a merely abstract concern with
groups
>or class rescue a film from conservativism either.
. . . and while everything in his post is compelling if not invariably
convincing
i'm a little troubled by this . . . the idea that what we innocently call
"forms"
are themselves laden with "content"--espcially "ideological" content--has
been
one of the important contributions of modernism and [especially]
post-modernism
to the protocols of reading . . . no doubt that idea has at times been
milked for
more than it may have been worth, especially in extreme versions of the
claim that
the act of looking itself, to say nothing of the apparatus of cinema, is
inherently
retrogressive/sexist/imperial/decadent usw. . . . so one wants to endorse
ross'
skepticism in the fact of another such claim
and yet i think it fair to say that [please note the many qualifiers in what
follows]
by and large, hollywood films, like many popular and conventional
narratives,
tend to posit a hero who is seen as acting as a free agent and -- in many
cases --
finds his [rarely her] heroism precisely in the ability to overcome the
social and
cultural and historical forces that would constrain him, and to thereby
assert
the full force of his neo-cartesian "authentic" self . . . a medium or
genre or mode
of production that keeps telling this story may not "necessarily" be
conservative,
but to label it as in fact conservative seems not unreasonable . . .
i am also, more controversially no doubt, hesitant about the idea that
>the individual must be mediated by the universal (including the
universals
>'individuality' and 'freedom' that are so much legacies of the great
tradition
>of bougeois narrative), and that freedom is a lie in an unfree society.
an idea that seems to presuppose that there was a time when the notion
of the autonomous self was not only less constrained by contemporary
ideologies but somehow also more valid . . . do we really want to say
that our own ideas are irremediably more over-determined than those
of our great -- and more free -- forebears??
mike
------------
*
*
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.
**
--=_alternative 004EAA1A85257004_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">ross writes:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>>No medium, or genre or for that matter
'Hollywood' is inherently<br>
>conservative, nor does a concern with isolated individual heros
necessarily<br>
>imply conservative ideology, nor does a merely abstract concern with
groups<br>
>or class rescue a film from conservativism either.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype"> . . . and while everything
in his post is compelling if not invariably convincing</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">i'm a little troubled by this . .
. the idea that what we innocently call "forms"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">are themselves laden with
"content"--espcially "ideological" content--has
been</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">one of the important contributions
of modernism and [especially] post-modernism</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">to the protocols of reading . . .
no doubt that idea has at times been milked for </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">more than it may have been worth,
especially in extreme versions of the claim that</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">the act of looking itself, to say
nothing of the apparatus of cinema, is inherently</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino
Linotype">retrogressive/sexist/imperial/decadent usw. . . . so one
wants to endorse ross'</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">skepticism in the fact of another
such claim</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">and yet i think it fair to say
that [please note the <b><i>many qualifiers </i></b>in what follows]</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype"><b><i>by and large</i></b>,
hollywood films, like many popular and conventional narratives,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype"><b><i>tend </i></b>to posit a hero
who is <b><i>seen as</i></b> acting as a free agent and --<b><i> in many
cases </i></b>-- </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">finds his [rarely her] heroism
precisely in the ability to overcome the social and</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">cultural and historical forces
that would constrain him, and to thereby assert </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">the full force of his
neo-cartesian "authentic" self . . . a medium or genre or mode
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">of production that keeps telling
this story may not "necessarily" be conservative,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">but to label it as <b><u>in
fact</u></b> conservative seems not unreasonable . . .</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">i am also, more controversially no
doubt, hesitant about the idea that</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>>the individual must be mediated by the universal
(including the universals<br>
>'individuality' and 'freedom' that are so much legacies of the great
tradition </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>>of bougeois narrative), and that freedom is a lie
in an unfree society.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">an idea that seems to presuppose
that there was a time when the notion</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">of the autonomous self was not
only less constrained by contemporary</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">ideologies but somehow also more
valid . . . do we really want to say</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">that our own ideas are
irremediably more over-determined than those</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">of our great -- and more free --
forebears??</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">mike</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Palatino Linotype">------------</font>
*
*
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.
**
--=_alternative 004EAA1A85257004_=--
*
*
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.
**
|
