As a veteran of multiple debates on the IMDb and other forums
concerning minor points of film appreciation, film history, film
interpretation and more (often involving as (un)imaginative insults as
possible - although none can top the accusation on a Hal Hartley
mailing list once that I was a Red for arguing that Henry Fool is a
socialist film), I am interested to see that Film-Philosophy has got
heated recently on the "Heath Ledger debate."

I do not and cannot decree what is appropriate for a forum like
Film-Philosophy.  Evidently some believe that the expression of loss
over the death of an actor is inappropriate; others that attacks on
people who post to F-P (if I may) are similarly inappropriate; others
that attacks on attacks on people who post to F-P are in addition
inappropriate.

Since I am happy to read (when I can) the thoughts of others, I am
happy for all of these to continue on Film-Philosophy.  After all,
there hasn't been this much debate since, well, I can't remember since
when.  And that is a good thing.  For even if the debate is not
strictly academic, it is certainly revealing.

What is interesting is the rather vitriolic form of this debate.  Some
posters are even calling for others to be barred from the list!  Or
asking for posters to continue to be included so that we can ignore
them (?!), whilst at the same time evaluating how 'childish' they can
become (which surely is not ignoring them at all?).

Evidently Film-Philosophy, its doctors and 'laypeople' alike, is not
above this mud-slinging level of debate, otherwise this mud-slinging
level of debate would not be here.  Therefore it seems that for all of
the qualifications in the world, there is something particular to
online forums and perhaps the email format - and their ability to
arouse such brutal debate - that we might explore here.

Forums in general:

If, underneath all of the help that forum posters offer to each other,
there is a subtext of self-affirmation, of showing off one's knowledge
(and rightly so--there are among us some wonderful experts whose
knowledge it would be a pity not to share), then there is perhaps also
a subtext of competition.

Specific to F-P:

Perhaps in particular for the academics among the legions of
Film-Philosophers, this sense of competition is understandable.

Any Darwinian can see that there are limited posts and limited funds
for film academics.  As a result, it is an industry with its fair
share of backstabbing.  Even, perhaps especially, on an online forum,
if someone who *might* be an academic (their email address might give
it away) makes a comment that others can damn, they will do so.  It is
as if to say: "Look at X, who just said something stupid; they should
not be here; they should not be in this world stealing money and jobs
that could be mine."

"Who knows?" we say to ourselves.  "David Bordwell could be reading
this, and he could be my next boss.  Seeing how clever I am (in
pointing out how stupid someone else is - me, alpha academic, roar!)
might persuade him that I am the man for the job.  'Hey, you're the
guy who pointed out how stupid that Heath Ledger posting was, right?
You're hired.'"

The reason to raise this question of competition is not to lay into
academics.  I definitely suffer from (and am most certainly suffering
from right now--if you're reading, David Bordwell) similar illusions.

The reason is to raise the notion that online forums are virtual and
competitive spaces; perhaps even a version of online gaming and the
Multi User Dungeon.  We conduct a virtual life here and, as and when
we choose to make our presence felt, we need to do so in a forceful
manner; we *need* to assert ourselves; and anyone who admits weakness
("I miss Heath Ledger" [for the record, so do I; I think he was
becoming an excellent actor]) can and almost certainly will be
'punished.'

We follow here a need to punish those we perceive as 'weak' - for, in
the virtual environment of the game, you need to reduce the numbers of
opponents (the logic of gaming, perhaps a logic of the screen, is that
there can be no joint winners, but only one).  Therefore, you might as
well dispatch the weak sooner rather than later--before they have had
a chance to grow strong.

However, as soon as someone reveals how strong or weak they are, there
seemingly starts a chain reaction, in which other people (grown
adults!) decide that they'll assert their authority, too.  "I'll knock
you down because you're [apparently] only a weakling who knocks down
[those you perceive to be] the even weaker."  And so forth.

It has been interesting to follow (and, now, to participate it in; cue
my own 'death' - until next time - on Film-Philosophy).

I wonder that the remoteness and yet the personal nature of email is
another reason for the violence of this debate.  If there is an
element of combat (just sparring?) on F-P, then, in much the same way
that distance eases the job of killing for snipers, then the remote
nature of 'ending' someone on F-P (and the relative anonymity with
which this can be done) is also cause for not just suffocating them,
but blowing them up as spectacularly as possible.

Further, as everyone will perhaps know by now, humour, in particular
irony, travels very poorly via email.  This, to my mind, is because
text will lack facial expression, tone of voice, etc.  Email is not as
immediate as conversation, and yet its immediacy (speed; its potential
intimacy) seems to confuse us into thinking that it IS as immediate as
conversation: when we write (or, certainly, when we first started
using email, when we wrote) emails containing sarcasm or irony, we
just assume the reader will know that we mean no harm and that it is
not supposed to be taken seriously.  Perhaps this is a case of what
psychoanalysts might call psychic equivalence - the idea that one's
interlocutor knows exactly same things as you and that nothing
therefore needs an explanation.

For, because we assume others know what we mean - and yet all too
often we find that they do not - there must be something particular to
email that makes it a method of mis-communication (this does not
extend, seemingly, to other text-based forms of communication, for
example, the SMS).

We can be convinced that a posting on F-P is a huge insult, when, for
all we know, it could be banter between two close friends.  I may have
misinterpreted the fact that all of this Ledger sledging might be an
amusing exchange for all concerned; but I get (wrongly?) the
impression that it is not.

I am not sure what the answer is, if there is one.  But I am intrigued
by how email arouses regular misunderstandings, how online forums
provoke not just informed discussion, but also (and more often?)
vitriolic confrontation.

I don't know which future potential bosses are out there on F-P.  Or,
more simply, into which 'league of intellect' I fit (and, although it
would be true for anyone to say that a part of them does not care
about such things; another part of me (and others?) DOES care a bit
and at times a lot about such things - hence questions like "Am I good
enough to do this job?  How can I respond to the pressure of the
RAE?").  But the competitive elements (whether intended or not) of a
forum like Film-Philosophy can indeed lead one to worry about such
matters.

Indeed, I was recently reading a theorist (can't remember who without
looking at my books, which are elsewhere - maybe Paul Virilio)
recently who argued that the problem of instant telecommunications
entails not the ability to make work more like leisure (accessing
one's email on a beach), but the invasion of work into leisure time
(having to check email whilst on holiday).

Perhaps something similar happens here: what is supposed to be an
informal forum in which we can or could express 'stupidities' (I
recently thought Walk Hard was enjoyable; I think EuroTrip is an
underrated film; isn't Anchorman good?) and/or admit to our everyday
emotional experiences (I am intelligent, but I can also forget to
switch off my gas fire; I am responsible, but I also danced on a table
last weekend at a wedding) in fact becomes a very formal and
judgmental forum in which we dare not admit to anything for fear of
reprisals...

I can understand many (even top) academics not wanting to post on F-P
in case they are publically (albeit virtually) 'attacked' and/or made
to look (or, worse, to feel) foolish.  On the basis of this
multiple-entry Ledger debate, such fears are justified...

We can lament that this debate has been a pity; that Film-Philosophy
is *really* a forum that welcomes discussion from any and all of those
who take an interest in Film and Philosophy.  But, until we forget
this debate (which we will, and probably quite soon), Film-Philosophy
is like any other online/email forum - potentially quite scary to ask
for information and/or to express opinions in case someone jumps down
our throats.

As such, it's perhaps about the form (online; email; screen; virtual;
immediate) more than it is about the people taking part.  Anyone else
got any thoughts on this matter?  (If they've read this far.)

Keep on trucking.

w

*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**