SCREEN-L Archives

March 1995, Week 2


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
Paul Ramaeker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:44:53 CST
text/plain (22 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Responding to the artist, Jajassoon wrote:
> At least in many forms of contemporary
>theory and criticism, we don't look at what the director tried to do or say
>with the film as much as we look at the meaning making process of the
>reading of a mediated text.
so, jason writes in to plug telecom! fair enough! but, also, what is also
often studied in many OTHER "forms of contemporary theory and criticism"
just isn't primarily interested in meaning, seeing as ALL meanings are
contructions.  And for a critic to leap to an interpretation right off the
bat is necessarily to close off many equally or more interesting channels
in the work, and distorts the work to the extent that access to it can
actually be closed off.  The work itself is left by the wayside, and
frankly it is precisely the desire to understand film that got me here, not
an interest in meaning.  So, Freelancer, I take analysis to be close
examination of the work and understanding the principles behind its
construction (social, economic, formal) NOT INTERPRETATION!