A number of the thoughtful comments on the moebius strip and 'Lost
Highway' point to a more general issue in interpreting a film - the
status of the reading. Linguists distinguish 'God's truth' vs 'hocus
pocus'. In God's truth, the structure exists in the film, and the
analyst simply extracts it. The reading is therefore presented as
literal,not metaphorical. In a hocus pocus reading, the analyst imposes
a structure on the film, making it a metaphorical reading - or, in
worst cases, a mere illustration of the theory.
In my reading of 'Lost Highway' a few posts back, I assumed my reading
of it in terms of the moebius strip to be literal - that is, it reveals
something about the structure of the film itself. Herbert, Dan, and
Nicky seem to disagree - perhaps because the film contains other
structures across its entire surface? or because my ontological
assumption that the structure exists in the film?
Warren Buckland
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.
**
|