Norman Holland suggests that one look at complex experimental results on Kuleshov from "the spectator's point of view." It is perfectly reasonable to look at results from the spectator's view; except that the results become idiosyncratic, it seems to me. I'm not a devoted experimentalist. The study I cited has my name as the senior and actual writer of the words. The work was done by psych graduate students as an *experiment*; a method that carries different assumptions than the presumably psychoanalytic approaches that others are urging. There's nothing inherently better about one or the other. It's simply a matter of what kind of evidence one is most comfortable with. Give a forced choice, I prefer experimental over psychoanalyical. Other people make different choices. It's not for me to criticize their choice. That said, I'd be interested in a brief simpler explanation of the the experimental results from the viewpoint that Norm Holland suggests. (This is not an invitation to a flamewar, please.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cal Pryluck, Radio-Television-Film, Temple University, Philadelphia <[log in to unmask]> <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>