Bill Harris wrote:
"Again, this clearly indicates that Cavell believed Hollywood (films so selected!) gave us an adequate representation of the world. This is not only utter nonsense but propagandistic in a manner befitting Gobels or Zdanov."
Why you keep misunderstanding me? It is not about adequate or inadequate representations of the world. I just want to understand, why - trained in European "time-image" cinema, knowing everything about how films contruct worlds and everything about self-reflexive modes of representation, not having a naive concpet of cinematic realism (as it was indicated here) - why then am I still fascinated by and interested in classical Hollywood cinema, or why do I prefer conventional cinema in the mode of Rohmer (who has a sense of the world in a Heideggeriarian way, as he speaks about cinema's capacitiy to return us to an admiration of the world as such) to films by Jodorowsky, which I find aesthetically naive, boring and uninteresting and everything but subversive?
(By the way, who are Gobels und Zdanov?)
Herbert
--- bill harris <[log in to unmask]> schrieb am Fr, 13.2.2009:
> Von: bill harris <[log in to unmask]>
> Betreff: Re: convention cliche
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Datum: Freitag, 13. Februar 2009, 4:56
> Whatever Cavell is or isn't big-picture wise, this is
> what you wrote:
>
> "Cavell says about post-classical cinema in Hollywood
> and Europe in the
> 60s that it is more focused in the presentation of a film
> style, making
> us aware of the modes of representation, than in the
> representation of
> the world."
>
> Again, this clearly indicates that Cavell believed
> Hollywood (films so selected!) gave us an adequate
> representation of the world. This is not only utter nonsense
> but propagandistic in a manner befitting Gobels or Zdanov.
>
> Certain modernist techniques openly demonstrate the
> artifice behind all art: think of Godard and Jadoworski.
> This, ostensibly, emerged as a reaction to institutionalized
> national-ist cinema(s) which sought to hide the imaginary
> aspect behind a veil of postured seriousness passing off as
> "naturalist".
>
> To quote Deleuze, "The history of film is
> martyrology". What remains, then, is critical social
> commentary on the potential employ of cinema as a mechanism
> of control.
>
> BH
>
> ----- l Message -----
> From: Herbert
> Schwaab<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 14:14
> Subject: AW: convention cliche
>
>
> Thanks for making clear what I meant. Cavell is anything
> but a naive realist. The status of reality on film is very
> ambiguous. You accept a certain closure and totality of the
> worlds enfolded by (classical or conventional) films but you
> remain wholly conscious that these worlds were created. But
> still your relation to the film differs from films which
> foreground the fact that their worlds are represented (maybe
> it could be called a deferred reflexiveness in conventional
> cinema, which comes after the film, but I don't know
> whether this is the proper term).
> By the way, GWTH is not a film Cavell would much approve
> of, because it is ond of the few films of the 30s that
> predates blockbuster cinema's way of addressing its
> audience head on.
>
> Herbert
>
>
> --- Anja Ivekovic - Martinis
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> schrieb am Do, 12.2.2009:
>
> > Von: Anja Ivekovic - Martinis
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Betreff: convention cliche
> > An:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Datum: Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2009, 19:24
> > In response to Bill Harris's last post pointing
> out the
> > lack of realism in
> > classical hollywood cinema: if I understood Herbert
> > Schwaab's earlier post
> > correctly, it's a matter of the self-conscious
> > foregrounding of the process
> > of presentation, or lack thereof, as exemplified by
> > classical hollywood.
> > Whether hollywood films had anything to do with the
> > "real world" is
> > irrelevant, it's the approach that matters, an
> approach
> > that says "Here is
> > the world", and not "Here is a way of
> presenting
> > the world", as would be the
> > case in post-classical cinema. Besides, the way
> hollywood
> > films presented
> > the world was likely (or their makers supposed it
> was) the
> > way that their
> > audience preferred to see the world. So, as far as
> the
> > audience was
> > concerned, that was "the world". I'm
> > simplifying here, of course.
> >
> >
> > Anja
> >
> > *
> > *
> > 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
> > Or visit:
> >
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html>
> > For help email:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>,
> not the salon.
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy online:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com<http://www.film-philosophy.com/>
> > Contact:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > **
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
> 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
> Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html>
> For help email:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>,
> not the salon.
> *
> Film-Philosophy online:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com<http://www.film-philosophy.com/>
> Contact:
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> **
>
> *
> *
> 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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
*
*
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 online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|