SCREEN-L Archives

February 1993


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]>
Mon, 22 Feb 1993 21:53:24 -0500
text/plain (20 lines)
Billy, You seem to be saying that objectivity is better than subjectivity,
but I'm sure what you mean is simply that objectivity and subjectivity
should both be presented straightforwardly so readers (listeners) know
the intentions of the writer (broadcaster). Right? I don't want a newspaper
that has no editorial page; but I don't want a newspaper that can't tell
me that two cars collided at the intersection of This Street and That
Avenue without passing judgement on the drivers. And let's recognize that
there are simply degrees of objectivity without getting so frustrated
about the fact that 100% objectivity is unattainable. Fact is: a high
enough degree of objectivity is attainable. NOW LET'S TIE THIS DISCUSSION
TO A MOVIE: Do you remember how subjective the Jane Fonda character
became in the final scene of "The China Syndrome"? Do you remember how
she even apologized for her subjectivity on camera? But do you also
remember how powerfully she caught the moment with her weepy, subjective
report of the courageous efforts of the Jack Lemmon character? This,
I think, made it very clear that objectivity should not always be the
goal of the journalist. When Fonda resorted to her true feelings, her
subjective feelings, she got at the truth more accurately than all the
objectivity in the world. Nuff said. Ernie.