SCREEN-L Archives

July 1997, Week 3


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

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

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Stephen Brophy <[log in to unmask]>
Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:40:28 EDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (43 lines)
>liz weis' coment:
> There is no definitive sound
> track...
>suggests all too strongly that when it comes to film not only is
there no such
>thing as an authoritative cut or "text" but that the whole notion of
>authoritative text makes no sense whatsoever . . . i know i shouldn't
but i
>still find this vaguely disturbing, even a touch sinister
>mike frank
In my opinion, Liz Weis' comment suggests no such thing.  It is a
of fact of which many people may be unaware.  In any case, without
explanation of why Mike Frank finds it "sinister" to question the
of a text, his post contributes nothing to this discussion.
-Steve Anderson
  Unless a sound track shouldn't be considered a constituent of a
cinematic 'text,' it seems reasonable to 'suggest' that a statement
declaring the absence in every case of a 'definitive sound track'
might 'suggest' the similar absence of an 'authoritative text.'  In
any case, Mike Frank's general writing style, at least on this list,
seems designed, with it's acknowledgement of multiple points of view
and general allusive style, to stimulate further thought in its
readers.  Steve Anderson does not speak for me in the above lines;
perhaps he could make his point more apparent to me if he rooted out
some of the hostility that seems to distort it.
                                                Stephen Brophy
                                                Cambridge, Mass.
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]