 |
 |
> I think that it's important to note that Derrida concludes that *both* > writing and speech (and, thus, both the filmic image and its script) > are involved in exactly the same relationship to meaning. Thus both > film and writing are _writing_ (and this third term decribes the > relationship of film and writing to the production of meaning). for me, though, this always privileges 'meaning' and its production. it is only valid, perhaps, with this privilege in mind (ie: whereby meaning operates like one of those odd quasi-transcendentals of Derrida's). there seems no necessity for film to be about the 'production of meaning' any more than there is for philosophy to be about the 'production of beauty'. of course it can and does happen. matt lee 0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o http://www.indifference.demon.co.uk icq - 48588469 http://www.icq.com/48588469 http://keyman.diaryland.com/ http://www.geocities.com/keyman_in_brighton/ we are the dreamers of dreams................. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%