SCREEN-L Archives

May 1996, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 May 1996 14:06:24 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (86 lines)
Murray Pomerance comments:
"I'm referring to a "popular"--I don't know a better word, and the quotes
count--notion that film is something absolutely everybody, and anybody,
can make sense of just by seeing it.  The other night at dinner, long
after reading the debate on BR, I argued with a student of mine who had
spent 30 minutes watching Antonioni's BLOW-UP, decided it was "sexist
bullshit," and just switched it off; *AND THEN WANTED TO KNOW WHAT I
THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND TO ARGUE ABOUT ITS MERIT.*
 
I'm perfectly aware people can do this, but I think they shouldn't.
Whether or not I am what a friend has called me, an "unregenerate
auteurist," I believe an artist like Antonioni in making a film like
BLOW-UP was commiting an act of art; and an act of history; and an act of
social consciousness and intellect.  And to understand the film it helps
very much to consult, through their texts, with those who have read it
and studied it largely.  Some have published on it.  Others--like
me--have merely written and taught.  I have, surely, seen it 25 times or
more.  And if it is my vanity, so be it, but I want to feel I can talk
about it in some kind of depth with people *who have at least seen it
once* without predisposition against it.
 
The attempt to plug into analysis without the prerequisite experience
must be one of our most pervasive curses. . . . "
 
 
I won't disagree with the symptoms Murray cites.  I just finished explaining
to a student why her paper on South Africa that used two sources that were
more than ten years old wasn't, uh, adequate.
 
        "Well, It's what I wanted to say!" she responded.
 
        I think I finally persuaded her to try to at least alter her approach!
 
 
But I also think there are two other issues involved with what Murray
describes:
1. The status of some of us as "professional" film viewers.
        Thus, from time to time, not just students but colleagues will ask
"What did you think of [movie X]" in the way that a doctor might be told
about a persistant itch or a lawyer engaged with a question about divorce
settlements.
        Most of the time, I'm happy to pontificate (in abbreviated form) but
it can become annoying--especially when some individuals always approach you
on that basis!
 
2. The status of film itself as an artform and a popular medium.
        Most discussion of film takes place at a fairly superficial level.
When we get into academic discussion of film, it is not unreasonable to
expect that people are at least aware of some of the critical background
of the work or issue in question, but on an e-mail list (even one devoted
to "serious" discussion of film like this one) there are--as some respondents
have pointed out--a range of discussants whose awareness of that background
may be limited by age, geography, or other factors.
        In such cases, we don't need to keep reinventing the wheel, but we
can--to paraphrase some posters--gently point out that there's a wheel shop
just down the street and invite people to come back once they'
ve gotten one!
 
The situation Murray cites conflates points one and two.  The setting of his
conversation, at dinner, was informal; the respondent was semi-(at least!)
hostile to BLOW-UP, so I can understand Murray's irritation.  Depending on
the character of the respondent, I might have tried to pass the buck or
say I didn't want to play that game--or I might have tried to give the
respondent a few reasons to give the film another chance.  I have in fact
tried this sometimes with other controversial films from THE COOK, THE THIEF
HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER to FARGO.
 
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't!
 
On another list, I was chatting about a set of letters in two issues of
PMLA about the language used in an article published in an earlier, third
issue.  While I felt the author of the original article became increasingly
hostile and offbase in his responses to the people who said he was just
too darned hard to read, the protestors who gave up after the first sentence
were arguing in bad faith with him.  And none of the letters or responses
engaged with the substance of the article!  It was like watching an e-mail
flame war in very slow motion.  In other words, intellectual laziness comes
in many forms!
 
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2