On Fri, 7 Jul 1995, Gene Stavis wrote: It was inevitable that this controversy would come to pass when dogmatic > semiotics became the lingua franca of the academic community. I think it needs to be said--beside the fact that Gene Stavis makes a lot of sense--that he is pointing out a real *linguistic* deficiency of the "lingua franca" of semiotics when he notes its incapacity to deal with the non-verbal aspect of filmic constructions. Some of us, to our pride, I think, have actually made the things this debate is bringing to the table. Gene Stavis has been involved in making films. I have been involved in making texts. As a writer who makes writing, I affirm that I must concoct substitutions for artifices I see in film, that strike me powerfully, and that I simply *cannot* use TEXTUALLY. I cannot use what Bazin referred to as profondeur du champ (depth of field). I can surely *say* that something is behind something else, or that it is in the background, and so on. But Stavis and his collaborators could actually construct a filmic image with retreating planes of focus--or, better, with that visual construction I can only refer to in words as "an image with retreating planes of focus." Film can make the close-up, and I can only use those same black words on white paper to talk about being "close." Film--forgive me, purists--can have color: Alfred Hitchcock can dress 'Tippi' Hedren in chartreuse (with Edith Head's great help) but I can only say, "Alfred Hitchcock can dress . . ." and so on. How on earth is anybody SERIOUSLY talking about films as texts? I share Gene's bewilderment, and have to wonder, too, whether those who find "texts" everywhere love film for what it is or just for what they think it "tells" them. Murray Pomerance Toronto ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]