Mike Frank states:
 
>. . . it seems to me striking that all the correspondents who cited the
>response of pre-adolescents who disliked the ending of BEAUTY AND BEAST in fact
>support the notion of "normative readings" . . . for what makes those young
>girls' responses so intersting is precisely our own sense that they are NOT
>normative, in other words that in some implicit cultural norm presupposed by
>the film is not available to them, and that thus in some way they really don't
>understand the film . . . so while i absolutely do NOT want to say that their
>responses are not valid or not important or not valuable, i DO want to say that
>they are not "correct," at least not within the discourse community subsumed by
>the film
 
 
I was one of two people who commented on the responses of pre-adolescents
to "Beauty and the Beast" (all the others referred to Garbo's response).  I
believe Frank is implying that the normative reading of "Beauty and the
Beast" is that it celebrates the patriarchal, heterosexual couple.  Many
people who have responded on this subject (including myself) have indeed
assumed such a reading.   Therefore, Frank reasons that the girls' readings
(being different from our own) are not correct within "the discourse
community subsumed by the film."
 
I was waiting for somebody to fall in this trap.  Why is THIS discourse
community (the 500 are so cinephiles who are obsessed with film on
Screen-L) THE community subsumed by this particular film.  C'mon, we
represent a slim sliver of the viewing audience.   At least 20 million
pre-adolescent girls have seen this film, and I have not found one yet who
saw the heterosexual coupling at the end of it as a positive
representation.  Obviously, pre-adolescent girls share a different
"implicit cultural norm" than we do, and since this film is intended for
them (rather than us adults), why is their response the incorrest one?  Are
we so arrogant as to assume that our responses (being so invested with our
vast expertise on the cinema) are always the norm?  And that our fine
little "discourse community" here is the only one subsumed by the film?
 
Jerry
 
side-note:  while I often disagree with Mike Frank's opinions, I truly
appreciate their frequency and the careful thought that goes into them.
They serve to add to and continue the dialogue.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]