SCREEN-L Archives

November 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gregory Mark Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 7 Nov 1993 16:49:00 CDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Comments from the Citizen Kane/Simpsons thread reminds me of a question
I've always had about intertextuality.  Do you have to know the reference
in order to find it funny/striking/etc.?  I don't think you do.  It isn't
simply that some Simpsons viewers don't recognize the Kane references; they
can recognize that something is being referred to and find it funny without
knowing exactly why.
 
Case in point:  I was watching _Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure_ with a
14 year old relative of mine over the Christmas holidays, and he was laughing
hysterically during the Sigmund Freud section (no pun intended).  He then
turned to me and asked, "Who's Sigmund Freud?"  (Collective mon over the
state of American public education).  I then proceeded to tell him that
Sigmund Freud was an early persona of David Bowie's.
 
Similarly, I have some friends whose knowledge of the Arthurian legends was
gained primarily through _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_.  They knew the
parody before they knew the text being referred to, and they found it
funny down to the minutest details.  It's fascinating to consider how someone
might be able to piece together the "real" version given access to the parody
alone.
 
Would it change our notion of how intertextuality works if viewers can
recognize and find pleasure in references without understanding them?
 
Greg M. Smith
[log in to unmask]
University of Wisconsin-Madison

ATOM RSS1 RSS2