But I still don't think that we have to think of this relation
> between topological concept and the film's narration as one of
> determination. My disagreement with some of the interpretations was based
on
> my being repelled by the emphasis on one model of interpretation, like no
> other interpretation would be possible.

Herbert, I also do not think only one model of interpretation is possible,
that would be totally idiotic of me, and would go against the essence of
why art is such a beautiful thing. However, the Moebius strip itself is an
ambiguous structure which can be read in multiple ways, so we don't really
have a disagreement here, I think. Otherwise you may freely substitute it
with some other optical illusion from the Gestalt school of psychology,
where an image may be seen ambiguously...

Actually (see my letter on Francois Ozon) I was hoping that I could provoke
the subject of Deleuze versus or vis-a-vis Lacan. As I mentioned before
Deleuze seems to disagree with Lacan's idea of the Phallocentric Order.
I would like to know more about the motivation for this disagreement.


> Dejan misunderstood me in one point. I don't think that films are boring
> when being analyzed. Good film gain much from interpretation and from the
> theories applied to them. But I deny that bad films become better with
> theory (they may become more accessible, but that's something else). I
> admire lots of Zizeks thoughts, but I dislike his approach, which becomes
> apparent in the following quotation (though I know, that it is meant as a
> provocation, full of ironies):
> *For me, life exists only insofar as I can theorize it [...] I can be
bored
> to death by a movie, but if you give me a good theory, I will gladly erase
> the past in an Orwellian fashion and claim that I have always enjoyed it!*
> (I am not sure whether he refers to live or to movies at the end of this
> remark, so I could be wrong in my judgment of it)

I agree Zizek can be an anal-obsessive-compulsive pain in the anus, the way
he rants on, using way too many adjectives with an -ism suffix, and many
of his texts, though they demonstrate
breath-taking erudition, when reduced to their component elements,
look dangerously alike. Which reminds me of the old adage that every
film critic is in fact a frustrated film-maker.


> And I still find it significant, that I like *Mulholland Drive* more than
> *Lost Highway* (It would afford an extensive reading of both films to
> communicate this difference in a significant way...I wish I could offer it
> and I think it would be worthful, but with my bad command of this language
> it would take me too long).
> Herbert.
>

Herbert, could it be that you (and many others) enjoy MD more than LH
because of that steamy lesbian scene, which would speak in favor of
your violent male voyeuristic gaze being seduced by Lynch for commercial
purposes? I admit myself that a big part of my emotional response to MD
comes from this convincing and utterly arousing depiction of female
love. Otherwise I would say the difference between the Moebial structures
 of both films is negligent ?

*
*
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.
**