Norman Holland suggests that one look at complex experimental results
on Kuleshov from "the spectator's point of view."
It is perfectly reasonable to look at results from the spectator's view;
except that the results become idiosyncratic, it seems to me.
I'm not a devoted experimentalist.  The study I cited has my name
as the senior and actual writer of the words.  The work was done by
psych graduate students as an *experiment*; a method that carries
different assumptions than the presumably psychoanalytic approaches
that others are urging.
There's nothing inherently better about one or the other.  It's simply
a matter of what kind of evidence one is most comfortable with.
Give a forced choice, I prefer experimental over psychoanalyical.
Other people make different choices.  It's not for me to criticize
their choice.
That said, I'd be interested in a brief simpler explanation of the
the experimental results from the viewpoint that Norm Holland suggests.
(This is not an invitation to a flamewar, please.)
Cal Pryluck, Radio-Television-Film, Temple University, Philadelphia
<[log in to unmask]>  <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>