>the the question becomes whether the system enforces acceptable modes of
>representation, and whether those stylistic elements have ideological
>implications.
>
>consider the stink about "Natural Born Killers". Were they any more
>bloodthirsty
>than the average serial killers? Or was it Stones' dynamic modes of
>representation
>that raised so many hackles?
>Dan
>John Daigle wrote:
>
>> >John
>> >
>> > It seems that Hollywood is seen to be "innocent" once again, this
>>time of
>> >charges of being ideological. But, as I've said here before, it all
>>depends
>> >what you mean by "ideology". If you think the most popular of
>>entertainment
>> >media doesn't have to hoe to the most popular aspects of the culture in
>>order
>> >to maximize profit, you don't know your Marx. But even if you take a
>> >non-pejorative sense of the term "ideology" here, Hollywood must be
>> >ideological, in the sense that it is largely serving the "new Democrat"
>> >centrist values that presently dominate the culture.
>> >
>> >Dan Shaw
>>
>> All I'm saying is that Hollywood can be defined as either a style of
>> filmmaking, a means, if you will, or a system of studios. Neither are
>> ideological in any meaningful way, the style of filmmaking is a tool that
>> can be used for virtually any message, and the system simply behaves like a
>> system. Systems (any system, Marxist or otherwise) try to accrue resources,
>> no ideology is involved in this beyond the simple survival instinct of a
>> single celled creature. Individual people who are part of the system may
>> subscribe to any number of ideologies, but this is not terribly relevant to
>> the ideology of the system itself. It can affect the systems behavior if
>> enough of them think the same way, but the system doesn't think. Its not
>> "innocent" and being ideological is not a "accusation." These terms aren't
>> relevant to the thing itself.
>>
>> j. daigle
>
>--
>Dan Shaw
>Professor of Philosophy and Film
>Lock Haven University of PA
>Rm. 412 Raub Hall
>Lock Haven PA 17745
>"For beauty is the beginning of terror we are still able to bear, and why
>we love
>it so is because it so serenely disdains to destroy us." Rilke's First Elegy
The modes of representation... well, the system doesn't enforce them, the
system made "Natural Born Killers." The stink was over the level of
violence, usually we don't see the serial killers at work... on the other
hand, the movie made a lot of money, and Hollywood has given Stone full
licence to shoot anything he wants as a result. Personally, I wasn't
impressed with NBK. It lacked a certain... motif, if you will, an internal
coherence... to me, all the effects seemed to speak of a bunch of people
hanging out, getting stoned, and thinking, "Wouldn't it be cool if" and
just throwing it all together.
But thats neither here nor there, NBK was a Hollywood movie, and the stink
came from outside the system, not inside. The system doesn't "enforce"
anything in particular. It just wants more resources.
And once again, I don't think that the continuity style is ideological per
se, becuase it can be used to represent almost any viewpoint effectively.
Its the most effective means of presenting a narrative to a general
audience that we are currently aware of, and the reason it is effective is
becuase it shares certain assumptions in common with the PHYSICAL make up
of the human audio-visual perception apparati (you know, eyes, ears,
associated parts of the brain.) We see and remember real events in ways
that are similar to the way that continuity editing presents them. No
ideology to that, its basic, physical, universal across cultures.
John
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|