Get off the kosher, Bill, otherwise we're back into your nastiness of
a couple of years back. (and your non-existent anthropology).
DH
On Dec 24, 2010, at 5:38 PM, FILM-PHILOSOPHY automatic digest system
wrote:
> There are 2 messages totaling 760 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics in this special issue:
>
> 1. Showgirls/catfish
> 2. Bill Harris's slander (re SHOWGIRLS)
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:31:58 -0500
> From: bill harris <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Showgirls/catfish
>
>
>
> Bad metaphors make for poor judgment.
>
> My work at Vincennes, under Deleuze, was on Kant's Third Critique.
> Yet perhaps that's too muddy for you, as well.
>
> OTH, Deleuze's concept of the Body without Organs appears in Anti-
> Oedipus. This was not discussed in class because Deleuze--rare among
> academics--categorically refusd to discuss his own work therein.
>
> Verhoven--unlike, say, Kieslowski-- was famous for employing camp to
> illustrate larger points of meaning. This is more or less consistent
> with Spinozan univocity, which itself extends back into The
> Scholastic Era...and forward to W's Tractatus.
>
> In this perspective, depth and elevation totally miss the point:
> it's all on the surface which, in Showgirls, is made as glossy as
> possible. All we can do is make a case with facts within a given
> frame of reference.
>
> Calling others 'catfish', then, reeks of the idiocy of an over-
> Platonized Christianity. It's also bad Biology, derived from the
> Kosher obsession with 'clean' and 'dirty' fish.
>
> BH
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 00:56:11 +1100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Showgirls
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
> On 25 December 2010 00:23, William Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> At the risk of sounding a bit like Ralph Wiggum from Der Simpsons, I
> quite like Showgirls.
>
>
> Haiku for bh
>
> Bodies sans organs
> Amerika c'est kaka
> Play Showgirls, Nome!
>
> R
> -- Film-Philosophy 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-
> Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask] --
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> --
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:38:51 -0500
> From: bill harris <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Bill Harris's slander (re SHOWGIRLS)
>
>
> Even in the Homeric Era it was written, 'To Pathe methos echein'.
>
> So if the violation/cruelty theory no longer holds, perhaps it's
> just a matter of will versus the financial rewards of conformity.
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:14:51 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bill Harris's slander (re SHOWGIRLS)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> “My point is that all art is about the violation of the implicit
> terms that exist between creator and viewer/reader/listener.. “
>
> well . . . so much for homer . . . tant pis . . . it was
> nice while it lasted [three thousand years]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of bill harris
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:07 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bill Harris's slander (re SHOWGIRLS)
>
> My point is that all art is about the violation of the implicit
> terms that exist between creator and
> viewer/reader/listener. For example, Oates said as much about the
> novel, and, of course we have Artaud's 'cruelty' that states more or
> less the same thing regarding theatre.
>
> Cinematic terms ostensibly involve viewer expectations that will
> make him/her happy, and were intentionally violated by Verhoven,
> Esterhaz, and Berkley. That this caused an uproar from the real
> cinematic bottom-feeders (those whose sexual expectations were not
> met) was to be expected.
>
> What, however, did amaze me was the failure of 'the critics' to
> speak up. Would this not ostensibly include those in academia?
> Showgirls, then, is fussy to the extent that it demonstrated a total
> lack of a critical cinematic faculty from those charged with having
> one.
>
> This is not to say that those who disliked the film are wrong;
> rather, only that their lockstep
> behavior with those who they should be informing indicates a sociial
> pathology..an intellectual failure of leadership, as it were.
>
> BH
>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:42:20 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bill Harris's slander (re SHOWGIRLS)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> it’s christmas eve, and maybe that means that only those of us for
> whom this is no big deal will be interested in pursuing this issue
> thoughtfully – if so, so be it
>
> but i wanted to raise – without polemic or “poetry” – a
> question about the “showgirls” conversation: the most recent
> posts seem to suggest that the attention paid to this film by an
> “impressive list of film academics” is itself in some
> [mysterious?] way a vindication of the quality of the film . . .
>
> sorry, but i just don’t get this . . . from the POV of academic/
> theoretical inquiry disasters may well be more interesting than
> successes [“Successful films are all alike; every unsuccessful
> film is unsuccessful in its own way”???] . . . so i’m not sure
> why the attention of burch, williams usw. tells us anything about
> the value of the film as anything but an object of academic
> scrutiny . . . remember that williams has for years now been doing a
> great deal of impressive work on porn, and i suspect that very few
> among us want to defend the aesthetic or intellectual [as opposed to
> cultural/sociological] interest of the texts she works on
>
> in any case, it seems to me an inescapable [and, to me, lamentable]
> fact of most contemporary academic criticism that the inherent
> quality/value of a film [or book, or building, usw.] is of little
> significance [even if it’s allowed that the concept of inherent
> value has an meaning at all . . .
>
> what’s all the fuss about??
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
> From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Chuck Kleinhans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Film Quarterly
>
> Spring 2003, Vol. 56, No. 3, Pages 32–46
>
> Posted online on December 2, 2003.
>
> (doi:10.1525/fq.2003.56.3.32)
>
>
>
>
>
> Round Table: Showgirls
>
>
>
> Akira Mizuta Lippit, Noël Burch, Chon Noriega, Ara Osterweil, Linda
> Williams,Eric Shaefer, Jeffrey Sconce
>
>
>
> As recently as December, 2002, the New York Times' Elvis Mitchell
> referred to the "wreckage" ofShowgirls (1995). Yet the Film
> Quarterly editorial board had just been galvanized by a discussion
> of the same film. Apparently there exists a number of secret and not-
> so-secret devotees of the film.Showgirls has, perhaps unexpectedly,
> served to stimulate scholarly thought around issues of camp, satire,
> class, gender, the fallen woman, showgirl musicals, trash cinema,
> sexploitation films, hedonistic criticism, and reading and teaching
> the film. Noël Burch, Akira Mizuta Lippit, Chon Noriega, Ara
> Osterweil, Eric Schaefer, Jeffrey Sconce, and Linda Williams have
> contributed to this discussion of the film. Perhaps Showgirls can
> still be rescued from the wreckage?
>
>
>
>
>
> That's a pretty impressive list of film academics, by anyone's
> standard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Film-Philosophy 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-
> Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask] --
> -- Film-Philosophy 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-
> Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask] ---- Film-Philosophy 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
> technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-
> Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy
> Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> conference/ Contact: [log in to unmask] --
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 24 Dec 2010 - Special issue
> (#2010-339)
> ***********************************************************************
--
Film-Philosophy
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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
--
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
Contact: [log in to unmask]
--
|
