 |
 |
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 01:27:14 +0900 (JST) david d'heilly <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > At 12:24 -0000 08.02.99, john bleasdale wrote: Dear David A couple of thoughts. > > I've lived in Japan for 15 years and the whole culture of periphery > identity "cultural studies" completely bores me to apathy. It's a > humourless pathology. Please, let's avoid all of that. I really don't know what to say to that. > > Hmmm. I think that we should be a *bit* clearer about terms here. "Having > dislodged for the most part the authority of the individual author when > considering works of literature" means exactly what? I personally know of > more than three people who claim to have authored "The Full Monty" or its > stage production predecessor. (All uncredited, of course) Is this what you > mean? This isn't too obscure. This is the intentional fallacy. It simply means we do not call on the author of a work to provide the casting vote on any interpretation. They can be called on as interesting co-readers, but their readings can be just as flawed as ours, if not at times more so. As to film this becomes even more complex as it is by nature a collabrotive effort. As for all those who claim to have written Full Monty, when we're watching it who gives a shit, I'm looking at the sunflowers, your looking at the signature. > > Knowledge always effects interpretation, how could it not? My own personal > interest in analyzing any given film has to do with issues that I am > personally attempting to explore in my own film at any given moment. Yes but it is whether or not this knowledge or lack of knowledge invalidates a reading or authorises it. Not knowing who was the key grip on ET does not fundamentally invalidate my reading of the movie. As for your own criteria, well that certainly is your own personal interest and so we can't go much further with the argument there. > > I would assert that Kathy Burke's character was able to survive something > about as ugly as life gets while unflinchingly demonstrating a resilient > strength, love and humanity throughout that was still FAR larger than any > of the worst that life had thrown at her. She went in, and came out "with > her eyes open." Her character showed a determination and beauty found a lot > more often in real life than in the cinema, and I applaud her performance. > A lot of other actors would have backed down, and tried solving issues > through heroic pretentions or trying to depict how life "ought to be," but > she held her ground. > yes > I don't know that I saw it as a story. (Unless you just want to call it a > "Streetcar Named Desire" for the 90s) I thought that we spent a short time > with a fucked-up (normal) family as they fumbled through their fucked-up > (normal) 90s lives of unemployment, drugs and unfocused frustrations. There > was a process of dramatic structure, or transformation, in that something > happened, and was overcome, but "story" seems a bit grandious for what we > saw. Kathy survived something. It was through her love for her family, > including her brute of a husband, and their love for her, that she was > redeemed. Her brute of a husband survived something. It was through his > love for her that he was damned, through her love for him that he was > redeemed. Everybody in the family suffered, made their peace with it, wiped > the blood and spit off of their faces and turned it into a harder forged > dignity. > Then again, maybe it's just that they had used up all of their film stock > and had to stop before they'd shot the fabulous car chase scene. > In my opinion, though, the story is incidendal to what that film holds for > film philosphers. It isn't a novel. I see no reason to limit our > discussions of all film to their stories. Some films are merely cinematic > treatments of stories. I would assert that Nil By Mouth isn't. > I don't see where we were robbed of direct context. What do you mean? > No reason to limit discussion to any what topic whatsoever. In Nil By Mouth, story telling seems to be a constant activity. The stories range from male boasts, convoluted and of dubious veracity, family anecdotes, autobiography, recitation and jokes. We are not talking about the story of Nil by Mouth, we are talking about the story telling of Nil by Mouth. As for direct context, I might be wrong but the last scene does seem detatched from the rest of the film. It doesn't follow the way Kathy Burke's visit to hospital follows the horrifying assault. This seems a little obvious. > I would call Altman an LA phenomenon. What does he have to do with Oldman, > Cassavettes, Coppola, etc? > I trust myself, working through films scene by scene to give me accurate > readings of methodology. But then I only bother when I'm working on > something similar. I don't confuse films that should be sat back and > gaffawed at and those that deserve reflection any more than I'd consider > the butt twitches of the backstreet boys with the choreography of W. > Forsythe. I think we've kind of left our thread. > Yes maybe we have. Still its been fun Best wishes john ---------------------- john bleasdale [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%