Rene,
Re your comments below:
> I brought up your Jesuit education because I
thought
> the REASON that you
> felt you had to make your POINTS in the
literary
> equivalent of SHOUTING
> was because perhaps you felt that I lacked
the
> intellectual equipment to
> UNDERSTAND what you were trying to SAY. You
didn't
> say script, etc had
> nothing to do with film - it's just the
obvious
> implication:
I used to italicize in my e-mails by putting an asterisk at
either end of the material which I wanted to emphasize. There
may be way to underline or to use classic italics in e-mails,
but I'm a self-confessed cyber-klutz, and, ultimately, it was
easier just to capitalize. When I capitalize the title of a
book or movie or periodical, do you infer that you're
supposed to shout the title? Emphasis isn't the metaphorical
equivalent of loudness, and I thought it was clear that I
meant to emphasize, not to shout.
The inference that story, script, acting, etc, had nothing to
do with film wasn't obvious because it's ridiculous on its
face. What is obvious, however, is that the same story and
script, with the same actor giving the same performance as
the same character, can be filmed with two completely
different visual approaches. So, clearly, those factors have
nothing to do with whether or not a given film falls within
the parameters of a style that's defined by its visual
approach. I said film noir was defined by its visual
approach. If I'm right, it follows that story, script,
acting, etc., have nothing to do with whether of not a film
is or isn't a film noir.
You may disagree with that assertion, but it doesn't follow,
even if I'm wrong (which is, of course, not possible, since
we've already established that I'm more infallible than the
pope, but I'll allow for the hypothesis for the same of
argument), that I regard script, story, performance, etc., as
negligible factors in filmmaking.
> Gee Jim, the more you repeat yourself the closer
I
> come to accepting
> your point of view. Who needs logical argument
when
> you can use dogmatic
> assertion?
Well, really, Rene, if you ask a question that seems to
suggest that you didn't understand my original point, how
else can I answer it except to try to say the same thing in a
slightly different way.
> I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue
with
> someone whose main
> tactics of debate are the literary equivalent
of
> SHOUTING and dogmatic
> repetition of previously made statements. Although
I
> do note a SUBTLE
> change of position here - "color is CLOSE (the
caps
> are mine) to an
> absolutley disqualifying factor". Close
to
> absolutely?
I've already explained why I use caps for emphasis instead of
more standard form of itlaics, and, at the risk of repeating
myself, emphasis and loudness are not equivalent terms.
"Absolute" is, of course, as absolute term. If a tendency
just misses being absolute, then it's CLOSE to absolute.
Maybe I was a bit weasely to give myself some wiggle room
here, but, while I don't know of any color film made in the
'40s, '50s, or '60s that used darkeness and light in quite
the same way that was possible in B&W, I haven't seen
every film ever made in those decades, so it's barely
possible that there may be one that does.
The rest of your post got truncated, so I'll try to answer
your subsequent points in another message.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________________________ Do you
Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 19 Feb 2003 EST