Kendall D'Andrade comments: " Now imagine an analog of Murnau's comment near the end of _The Last Laugh_ to the effect that what we are seeing is simply made up, could not have happened, and is tacked on for those who prefer happy endings to reality. While I know of no films with this contrast between what is seen and what is shown, other than Hollywood conservatism, I don't see why such a sequence would be difficult for the viewers to interpret "correctly" . . . " Something like that occurs in THE THREEPENNY OPERA, where Brecht's deus ex machina arrives on a bike to ensure a happy ending that is otherwise implausible. I think the Pabst version of the play preserves that. Kendall also notes: "When the magician "shows" us sawing the person in half, most of us would treat our neighbor's commentary "He's not really doing that," as more reliable than what we "saw." That no one on stage says this seems irrelevant." But compare REAR WINDOW, which *seems* to make a case against "rear window ethics" with Doyle the detective casting doubt on anyone's ability to fathom the motives of others. But the fact that Thorwald *did* murder his wife undercuts that argument--and the vital clue, the wedding ring, is found because of presuppositions about how people (especially women) are supposed to behave--pretty flimsy evidence, that. RW is further complicated because another apparently vital clue--a shot of a woman leaving with Thorwald is seen by the audience but not by Jeff. If he had seen that event, his suspicions might have been laid to rest. RW is an even trickier bit of audience hoodwinking than is first apparent! 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]