Fwd: Reply: multiple versions (3 responses)

From: DiCandeloro, Zachariah Joseph <[email protected]>

Hello.

I would agree that whole idea of what is "better" or "worse" must surely a
subjective question for the individual consumer----who may or may not be
confused in his/her purpose in a given setting.

On the other hand, I would humbly object to the idea that the historian is
only interested in formalist writing. To name a topic at all is to give
voice or representation to indexically related structures and discourses,
some of which are bound to reflect commitment, necessity, obligation, or
bias. (We also have arguments which find voice or representation implied in
silence or elision.)

Personally, I am always looking not for a proper frame or conclusion, but
rather simply for a place to start. Hence, I was not sure what to think
about the alternate ending for the Buster Keaton film. While the one
character stood outside the door, did the two other characters run around
that little building three times... or was it four? At any rate, I was
relieved to read in the article that the main filmic narrative did include
a scene of the blacksmith dodging a locomotive.

-Joseph

________________________________________
From: H-NET List for Scholarly Studies and Uses of Media [
[email protected]] on behalf of Darryl Wiggers [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 10:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 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

 --
 --



-- 
Ken Nolley
Professor of English and Film Studies
Willamette University
Salem, OR 97301
Phone:  503-370-6280
Fax:  503-370-6944

 --