Dear Jane: I'm sending this in three batches, since my first post was rejected as too long! This commentary has all been pretty interesting to me, and I'm not sure what I can add except for my two cents: First, I don't think I would argue that linearity is important to comprehensibility, and I would agree that many of my students are perfectly capable of understanding a non?linear plot (esp. "Run Lola Run," "Sliding Doors," and "Reservoir Dogs," but also more complex films like "Eve's Bayou" and "Citizen Kane"??and even "Kurosawa's Dreams" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"??although some require a second viewing of such films). In addition, many have no problem grasping some type of plot (and meaning) from many of the films you originally listed. In my experience, they have a lot more trouble understanding complex films with fairly straight forward plots (e.g. "Richard III" with Ian McKellen, or Woody Allen's "Zelig"), along with some confusing (incomprehensible?) films like "Chinatown" or "Blade Runner"??but that may be because they seem slow and boring to many of them (or so they tell me). "Blade Runner' in particular garnered commentary about its incomprehensibility, in all its versions (as I understand it, the main reason there was narration and the supposedly "happy ending" in the original release was that Warner Brothers wasn't sure anyone would understand the film). My students also struggle with avant?garde and experimental films. Although I have shown them "Un Chien Andalou," I would never show them, for example, Barbara Hammer's "History Lessons" (a quasi? documentary on lesbians), not so much for the subject matter (although some would definitely be shocked by it), but more because it is exceptionally non?linear, and quite confusing to many who saw it when I did (as part of a film festival). Barbara L. Baker Professor of Communication Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, MO. (USA) 64093 (660) 543?4469 [log in to unmask] >>> [log in to unmask] 03/14/02 03:50AM >>> Re: UNDERSTANDING THE PLOT Un chien Andalou, The Big Sleep, Se7en, The Usual Suspects, The Matrix, Velvet Goldmine, Gummo, Mulholland Drive. All films that have incoherent or, to some, incomprehensible plots and storylines. (For some reason I am always completely baffled by films about counter espionage.) Does it matter? Do we need to understand the plot of a movie to enjoy it? Could you let me know more titles of incomprehensible films, any academic articles on the subject, and your views on the subject? Jane Mills re: Drew Perry: "The Big Sleep: ok. But you found the rest of these films incomprehensible? I think that's a matter of viewership, rather than an inherent property of these films per se." Jane M: The others films were ones mentioned most often by others I've talked to on this subject. It seems too easy to put things into the reception theory box whenever it gets difficult to explain some aspect or other of cinema ? and in doing so I wonder if we don't lose sight of the film text? re: Scott Andrew Hutchins: "anything by Maya Deren": Jane M: Does it really all boil down to the role and representation (or not) of the unconscious? Which is where the surrealists (I include Lynch) presumably enter into incomprehensibility (or perhaps the impossibility/difficulty of visualising the non?visual)? Any more thoughts on the relationship between attempts to represent the unconscious and the comprehensibility of the film plot? re: WLT: "I'm a little surprised to see Seven (or Se7en if you prefer), The Matrix and Velvet Goldmine mentioned since they're completely comprehensible to me and I've never heard complaints. Perhaps that's because The Matrix uses decades?old science fiction ideas and so much of the real?life references in Velvet Goldmine were also familiar." Jane M: Genre is clearly important. It doesn't offer the whole answer, however, since I know people who found Mission Impossible comprehensible (me) who didn't know the genre (who did). I wonder if, sometimes, audiences are so carried away by an aspect of the film ? perhaps mise?en?scene, or soundscape or performance or some other aspect, that they stop engaging in the plot? I suspect this happens (intentionally) in the film 'Suture', also some/many action movies. What might a film have that compensates for a lack in plot comprehensibility ? or which contributes to acceptable incomprehensibility? Also: you use the word 'complaint': but does it have to be a complaint? I've given up bothering about the plots of most nineteenth century operas ? it's not what I'm there for. Ditto many films. Does anyone else find that incomprehensibility doesn't affect their pleasure? re: John Dougill: "There was a long discussion last year about Blow?Up, a film which like Performance shortly afterwards hovers on the edge of incomprehensibility in true sixties style." Jane M: What was it about the sixties that didn't make sense? Are there other examples from other films, other >>> [log in to unmask] 03/14/02 08:03AM >>> drew perry writes, in part: >>We keep getting told that today's >>generation of non-readers (a generalisation, >>I know, but strikes me as a plausible >>characterisation) are just literate in a new >>way - they're visually literate. >>But then you keep hearing about how >>film or television texts that stretch >>the conventions one iota (convoluted >>narrative styles, profound existential >>subtext, allusive or open closures, symbolic >>imagery etc) are incomprehensible, unfathomable. >>That The Matrix (for e.g.) is just sill sci-fi stuff >>that 'makes no sense' ... just get into the special effects. and though i quite agree with him i think it might be worth making an additonal distinction . . . if visual literacy is the ability to decode the conventional [but rapidly evolving] codes and languages of cinema, then they are indeed very literate . . . . . . but . . . if by visual literacy we mean the ability to move from those codes to a different set of codes that drew names as "convoluted narrative styles, profound existential subtext, allusive or open closures, symbolic imagery etc" in other words conceptual codes that are not specifically cinematic but that we take as a central part of the western intellectual tradition, then they are almost totally illiterate . . . and i take it that one of the main objections in some parts of our culture to this new literacy is precsiely that it seems to interfre with the development of literacy of the more traditional kind -- which had little to do with simnply deciphering words and more to do with being able to frame the results conceptually m ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite