Responding to Greg M. Smith's question: "Would it change our notion of how intertextuality works if viewers can recognize and find pleasure in references without understanding them?" I have found in my research on film parody and intertextuality that, obviously, there are multiple levels of how one might read/enjoy/appreciate a parodic reference. On the one hand, knowing the source text (the reference) can be quite enjoyable and provide some sense of reaffirmation of one's "literacy." One can also pick up on "some" of the reference (i.e. a film such as _Rustler's Rhapsody_ might be read as a Western parody (and enjoyed as such), but its particular target is the sub-genre or cycle of what is termed, "the oater," or singing cowboy Western. On a different level, one may also find enjoyment in picking up that something is just a bit off ( noticing a certain disruption or incongruity in the text), yet not knowing the source of that parody (possibly what the 14 year old picked up on). On yet another level, one might simply find the parodic discourse humorous without any attention being placed on source texts (a film such as _Airplane!_ can be read as funny without any parodic references). In this manner, I think parody highlights the semiotic complexity of any text (or intertext, or parody) and demonstrates that people make various meanings on different levels -- with no level enjoying a privileged position. I discuss this in great detail in my PhD dissertation (UCLA, Film and Television, 1992) titled: "Bursting at the Semes: The Social Semiotics of Film Parody." Gotta run now. Dan M. Harries School of Film & Media Griffith University Brisbane, QLD 4111 AUSTRALIA [log in to unmask]