SCREEN-L Archives

January 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sat, 29 Jan 1994 10:44:26 EST
text/plain (26 lines)
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>