The distinction between allegorical films and allegorical reading
strategies could be mapped onto the anthropological distinction between
God’s truth vs hocus pocus.
Those who believe they find and describe pre-existent structures in
their data belong to the God’s truth camp (here I'd place the term
ontology). Those who believe they construct structures from their data
belong to the hocus pocus camp (could we place this under epistemology??).
In film analysis, the issue is whether the output of a textual analysis
– a film’s pattern, structure, or allegorical meaning – is simply found
and described by the analyst (God's truth), or constructed by the
analyst (hocus pocus). I think dan (based on his comment below) would
want to place all reading strategies under hocus pocus. There is no
God's truth.
The distinction sometimes keeps me awake at night. (I'm currently
working my way through a textual analysis of 'Inland Empire', and I feel
I need to practice some hocus pocus to write anything intelligible.)
Warren
Just published: Puzzle Films: Complex Storytelling in Contemporary Cinema.
>
> I am not sure what "ontological" means here, but I would say that the
> concept of allegorical reading may be the incipient character of reading
> itself and not just the readings through a theoretical frame. The
> "otherings" of reading generally and filmic reading pointedly are not
> optional but constitutive.
>
> dan
>
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|