On Tue, 6 Sep 1994, John R Groch wrote:
 
> But I actually logged in to take friendly issue with your premise, which
> is that the text is legible outside of its discursive and other contexts
> and that it has meaning apart from the multiple instances of its being
> read (i.e., it still "has" meaning even if that meaning is not conveyed).
> Even your own reading of the film has not been a reading of
> the-text-itself but a reading of that text against contexts, including
> Stone's corpus and film history.  A knowledge of Stone's work in some ways
> pre-reads NBK for you.  In the same way, the marketing campaign pre-reads
> the film for an audience paying attention to such a campaign (indeed, this
> is its purpose), so in fact studio marketing whores have EVERYTHING to do
> with the film's artistic statement.  And while we may suggest that Stone
> is not responsible for the work of marketers who muddy "his" message,
> neither is he responsible for the long history of humanist criticism which
> encourages our seeing the message as "his" to begin with.  Moreover, the
> fact that Stone has made a mass-marketed R-rated film already structures
> expectations, and thus readings, to an extent that Stone himself surely
> understands.  Even if every frame of the film remained the same, NBK would
> be a "different" film if it played only in art houses, or went straight to
> video, or carried an NC-17 rating. In short, everything about this film --
> its budget, its cast, its marketing, its timing as a summer film, the
> soundtrack by Trent Reznor, the scramble to get Tarantino's name somewhere
> on the credits even after he disowned the project -- is very clearly
> seeking out a mass market, which with today's demographics means first and
> foremost 18-34-year-old males; to say it is not a film "for" them is to
> willfully remove it from the cultural context in which it exists and with
> which it wishes to engage.
 
This is the argument I find myself in a lot these days.  Somebody trots
out an economically determinist critique of a film, and I respond with a
more textually based reply.  I am seen as denying economic influences,
and perhaps am seen as doing so for good reason.
 
Clearly there is a heavy context within which folks like Stone operate,
and equally clear is the role of economic influences in that context.  I
do not deny the existence of such factors, even when I assert the
comparative importance of textual qualities.
 
My take is that of an artist.  I'm a writer and a half-assed painter,
sort of.  I was writing long before I gave a whit about criticism and
scholarly analysis.  I usually have a pretty good feel for how
influential the paycheck-chase was in the creative process.  As a writer
I'd love to be paid for what I do, and the current book I'm working on
does, in fact, have marketing potential.  An economic determinist would
read the MS and see sex, violence, rock and roll, and probably conclude I
was out to make a buck.  True, to a small degree.  HOWEVER, $$$ is
really of very little concern to me - the book is designed to make a
certain statement about where I see certain media institutions heading,
and it would be beyond impossible for me to make my critical commentary
without creating a fairly splashy backdrop.
 
These things would be evident to a critic who was intent on reading the
text, but damned near invisible to the scholar who looked at the
financial possibilities and stopped there.  This is, in fact, an issue I
will be addressing at PCA in the Spring (assuming they let me in).  My
presentation takes a look at the charge leveled by many that U2 has "sold
out."  From certain perspectives it sure looks that way.  However, if you
take a good hard look at the actual music, videos, and performances
involved in the ACHTUNG BABY & ZOOROPA projects it rapidly becomes clear
that superficial economic analyses miss the boat and miss it badly.
 
Hope that clarifies.
 
Conspiratorially,
Road Angel
 
^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V
 
It seems to me a change is really needed
I'm sick of tra-la-las and la-de-das
No more long days hocking hunks of garbage
Bitter fingers never swung on swinging stars
                                        - Bernie Taupin
 
^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V