whatever you're saying:
when you ask 'am i the only one' be happym, brother and
seek and embrace them. for you represent MILLIONS who
are so disgusted they have shut down, broken by crap,
pap and boring films. pretentiously presneted as 'aht"
and some of the talent in that afore mentioned. you;re
never alone. even when alone. we share the world.
they are out there, the peopel like you..afriad to speak
and be known because their opposites are usually brutal
and dominate industries/genres. seekand find cause...it
will make you happy and maybe catalyze new art.
--- Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> with ref to my question:
>
> > question: am i the only one left who
> > wants that fulcrum placed entirely in the arena of
> authorial judgment?
> > . . . who wants a text that controls me
> > so completely that i am allowed no hermeneutic space
> at all except to
> > accept or reject, like or hate, what has
> > been presented to me . . .
>
> nicholas writes
>
> Can you think of any examples that truly do this? Some
> people feel this
> about Hitchcock -highly controlling, tightly
> structured, self-contained
> films, but books like Ray Durgnat's A Long Hard Look
> at Psycho reveal
> the incredible richness of that film.
>
>
> and it's a good and fair question . . . as it happens
> most of my own work
> has
> been on hitchcock, and i agree that the work is [at
> least at times] very
> rich . . . i also very much agree that there are many
> things in any text
> that were NOT intended [recall the "intentional
> fallacy" and its many
> reiterations and reformulations] and that are worth,
> as it were, solving
> for
>
> but, and this seems to me a crucial BUT, i think there
> is a clear
> conceptual
> difference between discovering and inventing -- even
> if in practice it's
> not at
> all easy to tell which one you're doing . . . i'm all
> for discovering in
> any text
> whatever your hermeneutic protocol might allow you to
> find there . . . but
> that
> does not mean that one -- please forgive the normative
> language --
> "should"
> use a text as the ostensive premise for inventing what
> one want to impose
> on it . . .
>
> this is not a moral claim: obviously creators of all
> kinds have used prior
> texts as a jumping off point for their own work -- but
> i'm eager to see
> this
> new work identified as new work rather than a
> discovery of dimensions
> already there in the old work . . . and this is so
> important to me
> precisely
> because i am so interested in [the process of] mining
> rich books, films,
> music, etc., for everything that they have . . . i
> thus admire durgnat
> because
> he seems to want to talk about what is really there --
> if not yet
> recognized --
> in hitchcock . . . to that extent durgnat is
> anything but post-modern,
> for
> his work seems to premise the possibility of
> recovering stable and
> determinate even if contradictory and obscure meanings
> . . . and without
> that premise the work of criticism as we have know in
> seems either
> impossible, or pointless or both
>
> mike
>
> .
>
> .
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of
> the message you are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email:
> [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
http://particlezen.proboards7.com/index.cgi
the edge of everything. no, really.
http://www.deadjournal.com/users/cataleptik/
catal3ptik is a rav3r
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|