Guy Rosefelt asks: >Another question would be: why can't we enjoy a film for it's own sake? To which I ask: What, exactly, is "enjoying a film for it's own sake"? It seems to me that Kurt Gegenhuber has already suggested one possible meaning of "enjoyment" as it relates to film. Perhaps you disagree with his analysis, but don't you see that saying, "I really enjoyed that film!" only gets us so far? Whether somebody enjoyed a film or not is *not very interesting* unless such a statement is made in the context of a review that I might be using to decide whether or not I would enjoy a certain film. There's nothing wrong with film reviews, but SCREEN-L isn't really "about" reviews. This is the "Film and TV Studies Discussion List". One might suppose that people who subscribe to this list are interested in HOW and WHY films are enjoyed. We can safely assume that they enjoy film in general. Different people have different ways of making meaning of films. Some of those people have more obvious "political" intentions than others. All of them, however, are speaking from some sort of "subject position", "ideological perspective", or "point of view". A statement like "Why can't we enjoy a film for it's own sake?" often seems to be trying to say, "Why can't 'you' shut up about your particular viewpoint?" where the offending viewpoint is usually perceived to be some sort of "identity politics". Perhaps a better tactic would be to start a new thread, giving your OWN interpretation of a certain film. But don't be surprised when someone takes issue with your interpretation. That's the "discussion" part. Also, the discussion here tends to have an "academic" slant. That is, the discussions often highlight or foreground competing ideologies. "Leftist" ideologies will often get "slammed" by voices from the right. "Conservative" ideologies will often get "slammed" by voices from the left. Deal with it. There is, however, no real room for a completely reductionist and essentialist view that posits film as "entertainment pure and simple". Such a view implies that there is nothing to be said about film, that film is simple, and that film is pure. All of this is demonstrably untrue. It's perfectly acceptable to be neither bothered nor stimulated by a certain film. But in that case, there's nothing much to discuss, is there? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith R. Crosley [log in to unmask] Director, Technical Communication Research Systems, Inc. 2995 Wilderness Place Boulder, CO 80301 ----------------------------------------------------------------