Re: Reply: multiple versions (3 responses)

From: Leo Enticknap <[email protected]>

Joseph DiCandeloro writes:

> IV.  So which representation of a topic is
> the best, the most useful, the most true, the most valuable, the most
> important, the most authentic? Such judgments are very, very hard to
> articulate, and almost impossible to deliver without arousing legitimate
> opposition.

Why is it necessary to make that sort of value judgment at
all (as distinct from trying to understand why others have done so,
which for film is frequently a necessary and important component of an
enquiry into its significance as source and/or evidence)?

The issue is
made problematic by the fact that films are evidentiary artefacts for
which clams for value, importance and authenticity are frequently made
for less than objective reasons. They are sold on the basis of those
claims initially (just look at any poster or trailer), and then studied
by critics and academics who claim that their method of understanding
them, reason for drawing attention to them or claims for their
significance should take precedence over those of others.

It should be
the job of historians not to fall into that trap - leave that to the
critics and theorists! For example, I am not, personally, interested in
conducting a debate as to whether 'Vertigo' is a 'better' film than
'Plan 9 From Outer Space'. I am, however, interested in why an
overwhelming critical and popular perception exists to that effect, and
consequently why all but one of Hitchcock's features has survived and
undergone extensive preservation and/or restoration activity, whereas a
significant proportion of the features that played in theatres alongside
'Vertigo' are lost (in some cases literally, and in most cases in
mainstream cultural memory).

Leo

 --