I don't know what Boris was referring to exactly, but I think I agree with
him non-the-less. Especially about the "terminology that can mean everything
and nothing." Half the time this list is used to further spew such
terminology, but the rest of the time it can be a fruitful and insighting
meeting of cinematic minds (a recent example that comes to mind is the Bill
Viola post).
There are times when I want to un-subscribe to this list though, like when
I'm bombarded with posts that go entirely too far into debate about what
someone meant by such-and-such a term and whether or not it was meant to be
interpreted in a mathematical way or not. I think some of us can be swept
away by terminology and lose sight of what cinema really is, flickering
light on a screen.
I believe that there is an art and science to everything (including cinema)
and subscribing to this list keeps me in touch with the scientific side of
the medium, however I think when delving into that science it is important
to keep in mind the artistic qualities and intentions involved as well. If
you can think of the cinema or a particular film as a human body that you
are dissecting with your theories and terminology, you have to be reminded
that despite the fact that you can take apart the hand and look at all it's
intricate facets - such as tendons and muscles and bones - you still have to
keep in mind that those body parts all lead back to the heart and are
dependant upon that he(art).
It is obvious that a high level of intellect persists among the members of
this list. I just think that these minds could be flexing over more
pertinent cinematic issues. For example, the "dumbing down" of America's
youth has been present for quite some time now and seems to be only gaining
steam. Why not channel your deconstructing energy towards the source of the
humor in the comedy of Adam Sandler or movies like American Pie? It boggles
my mind how sex and gross out humor can so easily out sell intelligence,
insight and integrity. Any thoughts?
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 7:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sokal & Bricment
I think that this thread is very useful also for film studies since there
has been written so much bogus nonsense in our field. Some work has been
done within cognitivist approch, but there is still plenty of things to
dismantle (*deconstruct*?).
Latest craze for the writings of Zizek is one of such examples. It is true,
he is well read, charming and always fun to read (something Lacan, Deleuze
et al. never are), but it belongs more to postmodern, self-conscious kind
of leterature something between fiction and faction then to the serious
theory.
I know that there is quite a lot of fans out there, but Deleuze's explicit
refusal of any kind of empirical evidence, his nebulous
stream-of-consciousness prose and terminology that can mean everything and
nothing (usually nothing) can be of value just to the believers - and I'm
not among them.
On the other hand, I cannot understand how sloppy argumentation, fuzzy
thinking, lack of theoretical rigour, dogmatic invocation of *master's*
texts, confusion, obscurity and vagueness can ever claim to be progressive
or left-wing. One can vote for those whom one wants, love ethnical and
sexual minorities as much as one wants, but it has nothing to do with
*intellectual* impostures.
Boris Vidovic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it
were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
---------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|