I don’t find this kind of linear logic sufficient to disprove the more
substantial claims of the apparatus theory:
“If we have items A and B, and they are similar in a number of relevant
respects, say in terms of properties p1 through px-1, and item B also has
property px, then we infer that (probably) A has px.”
I almost fell asleep transcribing that, which ironically would prove one
of Carroll’s ‘disanalogies’ that sleeping can happen anywhere, which
further doesn’t really prove anything. I’ve worked 3rd shift a good part
of my life, so I know I can sleep in midday sunlight, but I still think
Baudry’s dream analogy is appropriate for the material conditions of the
cinema and is keen on the psychological aspects. As for Carroll’s
argument against inhibited motoricity that spectators are not literally
strapped down to their seats, sure, that’s objectively true. However,
beaten housewives are not (always) literally strapped to their abusive
spouse; wage slaves are not literally tied to their crap job; quack
psychiatrists are not literally imprisoned in chemical protocol; do these
disanalogies disprove the preceding disanalogy to the original analogy?
Carroll appears to be parodying what he construes as Baudry’s inductive
conclusions. To me, this comes off as petty pragmatic minutiae thrown
like an angry handful of sand in the indifferent winds of theoretical
speculations. Maybe it’s and Anglo/Franco thing. Wouldn’t surprise me a
bit. I’m not pitching tent with anybody, just looking for insights where
I can find them, and I found Carroll’s essay in a dearth. Not worthless,
just bland and disappointing. Yes, the breast/screen thing is far
fetched. No, I don’t think Carroll’s ability to ask a nearby spectator a
question qualifies as reality testing. Again, I personally loathe the
idea that empiricism or statistics as the examination of surface phenomena
reveals the substance. Nor do I think that poking at weak spots to render
them holes invalidates an entire theory.
This is a concise statement of my viewpoint. I was just wondering if
there had been any significant efforts to continue the debate, which I’m
almost sure there have been. But I’m quite removed from the academic
loop, and I was hoping somebody might supply some directions to further
signposts I could swing around and hone my perspective. For all I know,
both theorists are laughably outdated amongst today’s brew. Tomorrow I’m
headed to UGA’s ample library, probably to camp out, so if anyone has
references, maybe I’ll come back a learned dude.
Take care
Adam
*
*
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.
**
|