it was conveyed:
"I need to convey the idea that if one is not aware of the "inside
commentary" of the film then that film cannot be understood. American film
preferred but any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!"

on the desire to be an insider or the requirement of cultural understanding

certainly, cultural context allows for *special* access to understanding a
film.  cultural context gives more flavor to a film.  however, knowledge of
that context is *not* necessary for understanding the film itself.  one need
not be a privileged insider to understand a film.

whereas directors sometimes wish to instruct their audiences, they usually
end up relying on them.  we can always manipulate what an audience sees
(hitchcock was a master at this) through expertise and innovation,  but we
cannot determine what an audience will know.  If cultural context were
primary for film understanding, film would have died shortly after its
conception.

I was struck horrifed in a packed theatre at the re-release of _The
Exorcist_ as I listened to the audience laugh at things that weren't funny
at all.  But I always attempt to come to terms with the fact that I cannot
require of the people a proper response to something merelty because I have
insider information that they have not had the privilege to receive.  A lack
of understanding Catholicism and the attempt to criticize those values is no
reason to restrict access to understanding for an audience.  You can't
always say, "But you just don't get it!" That need to convey  *proper*
meaning through the inside track is elitist and useless.

anyhow, it is the "need to convey the idea" (your words) itself that
requires cultural context not the desire to understand an idea or to see the
thing itself.  Certain films, films that have acquired diverse and
international audiences, refuse to insist upon cultural understanding of
historic events in spite of the works' position/place in history.  There is
nothing wrong with someone saying, "I think _Cabaret_ is about music and
sex."  Or, "When it comes to _Cabaret_ I notice an implied relationship
between homoeroticism and fascism."  You don't have to immediately see the
rise of Nazi nationalism in context to get the film even though the
knowledge of the rise of the Nazi party may allow you to have a handy
example to explain the themes of the film in a specific context.
        Godard's _Comment ca Va?_ deals with a specific historical relationship
between French communists' reaction to events in Portugal.  Knowing the
storied details of Portugal's bloodless overthrow of a fascist
regime--knowing all the details--and knowing the history of the french
socialist movement is not necessary to get what Godard is saying about the
role of the journalist/press/media, the technology of media representation,
the transfer of information, the active/passive roles assumed by participant
in an act and the audience who watches an act, etc.  A viewer need not be
French to get the film, need not be Portugeuse, need not have been a
participant in the '72 revolution, to understand the film.
        This is not saying that Godard's film (I should be saying Godard's and Anne
Meiville's (sp?) _Comment ca Va?_...apologies) transcends history or
culture.  But the only thing we can count on in the present moment, each
present and permanently passing hic et nunc, is contemporaneity.
Understanding each moment is up for grabs on the trash-heap of history.
History is only organized into a linear A, then B, then C...ad infinitum by
those who wish to restrict access to cultural understanding through a
defined and rigid logic in which participation by the masses is required.
        The network of history is changed each time a person enters it and
interprets its meaning.  Context is absolutely mutable.  It has to be.  For
a mutable context allows for the potential of power shifts within society.
Mutability allows for hegemony to work "to, for, and against" the
people...Concrete, unchangeable context is contra interpretation.
        All objectivists need not despair, dates still signify position in history,
but context belongs to the strange and necessary relationship between the
actor and the viewer.  Capital may depend upon elite sensibilities which
tend to organize society in hierarchies based upon restricted access to
everything from knowledge to materials.  Capital may require strict rules
for cultural understanding.  But the masses will always refuse to follow the
rules and skew intended meaning.  "The need to convey an idea" cultural
context (Truth with a capital 'T') will not hold up under the strain of the
need for multiple interpretation.
  Bertolucci's _Conformist_ is so powerful, you get it without the cultural
context.  There are images from that film that haunt a viewer regardless of
the knowledge of its specified cultural context.  In a different light,
Spielberg's _Schindler's List_ requires no real knowledge of Holocaust
events: it panders to the spectacle of the image of violence and rape
throughout.  Most films set in specific periods are more fashion oriented
than substantive.  Compare the women in _The Tin Drum_ to the *use* of women
in _Schindler's List_.  The former film, while set in a specific historic
period for specific reasons allows for understanding without cultural
context.  The women react to their surroundings and are allowed to respond.
Inside info is not necessary because the audience is allowed intimacy with
all characters.  The latter film has always insisted upon its importance,
always claimed that it says something about a historic moment. So there is
an idea that cultural context is important for _Schindler's List_.  But what
is its cultural context?  The characters a only symbols...they are supposed
to signify specific rhetoric.  It's a bogie...it's a charade...it's context
is located in the hollywood market only.   (OR) Cultural context seems more
important to the film specialist (film historian, film critic) in this case
as a tool for criticism.
        Well, I could go on...but I was thinking that a paper like yours might be
more valuable if it were to discuss the problem that film presents
concerning the truth/validity/implied necessity of the understanding of
cultural context--an essay that discusses how context is manipulated through
the direct positioning of images in a specific order to tell a story and
what uses context has in each case.  You could discuss the telling of tales
in general:  Begin with Aesop and the idea of "the moral" in tales and end
with popular cinematic representations of historic moments which cultures'
elite give meaning for common interpretation.

Just an idea,

Gary Norris


ps: i was in touch with somebody concerning biography and film awhile
back...computer change, email change, summer from hell...we lost touch...but
i am open for continuing the talk.   tchau.




Revolution is not showing the people how to live, it is making them live.
--Guy Debord

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp