 |
 |
Moving away from the Matrix, what about the philosophy of women reclaiming the romantic comedy/screwball comedy genre. Do movies such as Desperately Seeking Susan and Pretty Woman strike you as particularly feminist? Does this carry over to My Big Fat Greek Wedding? On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 12:00 PM, Automatic digest processor wrote: > There are 2 messages totalling 116 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. the matrix and why > 2. Question > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:47:29 +0100 > From: Damian Sutton <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: the matrix and why > > Hi Ken, > > I'm not bothered about your quoting, but I think there might be a > netiquette > rule about html. Anyway, here goes... > > Re: elitism. I don't know why you brought the elitism issue up - it's > clearly a problem for you, since I didn't even try to hint it. (in > actual > fact, I agree with you) For the record (again), I'm interested in why > the > film *seems* to be new, innovative, or special. I might ask the > question > about Buffy or Angel for that matter. These aren't rhetorical > questions, I'd > just quite like to know. > > > Re: Mileage and media ecology > > Well, you would defend academic writing on the film if you've got an > article > coming out, wouldn't you? I don't blame you. I would say something > similar > about _Band of Brothers_, _Gladiator_, or _Road to Perdition_ if I was > similarly tested, since I'm 'working' on them at the moment. > Personally, I > have no doubt that there are many, many articles that can be written > about > _The Matrix_ and many, many philosophical approaches. However, that > does not > necessarily mean that many, many articles should be written about _The > Matrix_: what you see as "robust (?) potential" I see as a hackneyed > attempt > to be all things to all people, whilst presenting itself as the only > film to > do so. That's a subjective response. I look forward to reading your > article, > mind. > > [snip] > "Every edit, every montage, [of _My Big Fat Greek Wedding] is a > philosophical discourse upon time, perspective, and narrative. The > medium > matters, and the form remains philosophical, no matter how little we > think > of its content." > > I find it difficult to subscribe to this, and it's a subject which > I've been > working on extensively. I'm not convinced of the 'more or less' > approach, > and certainly not convinced of the idea that every edit of _Greek > Wedding_ > [or, by implication, any film] "is a philosophical discourse upon time, > perspective, and narrative". I suppose it depends on whether we see > filmmaking as a self-consciously philosophical pursuit. I'd like to > read > arguments for and against the act of filmmaking as philosophical, > self-consciously or otherwise. Here I think intention would be > significant. > I suppose also that it would hinge on whether all films were at some > level > 'about' film, filmmaking, or narrative beyond being a film, a piece of > filmmaking, or narrative. My own personal view is that not all > filmmaking is > a philosophical pursuit, although there are films and filmmakers who > engage > in philosophy without explicitly referencing it. I think Deleuze is > problematic because his view of cinema is as an art form, not as part > of > popular culture, but sometimes that's why I like to read him. > > Perhaps after all that's what irks me about _The Matrix_. It's so > bleedin' > obviously "philosophical". Now, if someone were to write a piece on the > philosophy in _Python_, _Armageddon_, or _xXx_... > > > [snip] "None of which do everything the Matrix does together." > > Hold on, isn't that what I said? Why are you arguing that point? I > agree, > _The Matrix_ is unique in the way it deals with all these issues at > the same > time. All I meant was "so what?" All films are unique, and deal with > their > issues in a unique way. I can't think of a film which does what _The > Matrix_ > does. But that doesn't on its own suggest that what _The Matrix_ does > is > special, just unique. > > > Re: disturbing objectivity > > Okay, okay. No, there's no such thing as objective. Perhaps I should > have > emphasised 'ethics' rather than objectivity. I find it ethically > unsound > that academic writing appears on the commercial website for a film. I > suppose it's all about where one draws the line, and mine is right > about > there. It's a personal thing. For the record I don't think the > employment of > philosophical writing by the studio is altruistic. > > Re: co-option cul-de-sac > [snip] "the Matrix has done quite well without needing that special > academic > branding." > > Yes, but it's a useful tool to ensure further unit sales. It'll > support the > idea that the film is important philosophically, even to the extent of > socially ratifying it, despite a problematic narrative regarding > ethics, > gender, and race (what was that you were saying about examining texts > as a > whole?). Studios, like any other business, look for anything to expand > or > ensure a market. Pretensions to academia, or even just philosophical > import, > are not going to made scrupulously. I do see a difference between > academic > writing on the film published independently of it and writing published > under the studio's editorial control. > > > Damian > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:49:43 EST > From: Eric Willstaedt <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Question > > In a message dated 3/31/2003 7:36:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > << How would you film a Thought? >> > > > same way I would film a one hand clap, Grasshopper... > > ------------------------------ > > End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 31 Mar 2003 (#2003-97) > ****************************************************** >