Mike Frank drew the conclusion from my recent posting on "movies that touch the heart" that my comments were "based on the premise that the PURPOSE of movies [and presumably of art] is simply to touch our hearts." (capitalization his). He proceeded to invoke the New Critics to chide me for committing the "affective fallacy." In his words: "that a movie may have a point or a point of view, that it may carry ideological weight, that it may represent or misrepresent, that it may play a part in constructing a culture and hence, in the final analysis, play some part in constructing us . . . all of these possibilities are ignored by this premise as are any notions of skill, craft, artistic language, form, control that went into the work." Noble words indeed. I seem to have struck a nerve with Mr. Frank with this mention of emotion. I was not, of course, implying that the only reason to make a film is to appeal to the emotions, nor that the only reason to view a film is to be emotionally moved, nor that the only criterion for judging art is on the basis of its emotional appeal. My appreciation for the work of Wim Wenders alone would be sufficient corrective for leaning too far in that direction. My point in commenting on "Good Will Hunting" was that we shouldn't be too upset when someone disagrees with our assessment of a film which does move us. I stand by my hope that some will. As for Mr. Frank's comment: "We may care about films strongly enough to feel that pleasure alone is not what we want our films to provide," I suppose we have to assume that this caring so much about film separates certain superior critics from the common herd, allowing them to see ever so much more clearly than the rest of us into the artistic process. I doff my hat, but I do have some concern for one who will invoke the New Critics on the subject of the "affective fallacy" while so carelessly exposing his own rear flank to the "intentional fallacy." We might wnat to admit that this fallacy hunting is a bit like identifying the mote in our neighbor's eye, or to recognize that those who claim an exclusive lock on the truth are often doomed to spend most of their energy defending their turf. Mr. Frank and I could wish to have been present when one of my mentors, Richard Harter Fogle, debated the virtues of eclectic criticism against the strictures of the New Criticism, as championed by Cleanth Brooks. The debate took place at Tulane University, my alma mater, back in 1945. The critical issues seem still to be alive. So, we might hope, are the elements of mutual respect for colleagues and sensitivity to the context of their comments that I have no doubt were maintained between Professors Fogle and Brooks on that occasion. Ciao. Dan. Dan Gribbin Ferrum College Ferrum, VA 24088 Dan Gribbin ([log in to unmask]) Professor of English Ferrum College Ferrum, Virginia 24088 540-365-7303 ********************************************* ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]