From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 00:19:55 BST
Hi DMB (with apologies to Erin, I'll try to stop, but I'm feeling a bit
misunderstood, not least in that I'm not being my normal po-faced self in
this thread),
> DMB says:
> Well, there it is. You don't need the page number. "Sure, its possible to
> use film for primarily intellectual purposes, to make a documentary.." If
> that's not a get-out clause, I don't know what is.
And there was I assuming that an implicit distinction between 'film' and
'documentary' could be taken as read. To my way of understanding Pirsig is
saying that if a film is a documentary then it can have intellectual
purposes, if not, not. And I disagreed with that. It seems you do too.
...film can 'change the way you think and feel about your life'.
>
> DMB says:
> Oh, please. Where'd you read that? Sounds like a corny advertisement.
It's on the cover of my copy of ZMM (This book will....'). I thought it was
quoted on every cover, which is why I was referring to it - to reinforce my
point about how a film can achieve what his intellectual book was achieving.
> DMB says:
> Why can't a life be changed on the social level?
I'm not saying it can't.
> Myths and stories have
> shaped human lives and culture for thousands of years. Not only is this a
> social level function, its a vital and necessary social function. I'd add
to
> the point Erin made about context, but in an even broader sense. In the
> surrounding paragraphs and chapters, Pirsig is discusssing New York cit as
a
> social level Giant, about the central role of Celebrity in the social
level,
> and about Victorian values, as they were among the last to put social
values
> over intellectual values. (Those since are considered reactionary.)
Pirsig's
> comments about film as a social medium make good sense in that context. If
> Hollywood isn't about fame and fortune, which are social level values,
then
> nothing is.
>
I don't disagree with any of that. But couldn't the choosing of a new story
to tell be an intellectual level choice - and therefore, consequently, the
new story be an intellectual level product? I just think Pirsig could have
said it a bit more carefully - and as I said to Erin, perhaps it's a
deliberate part of Pirsig's anti-Phaedrus rhetorical strategy. Or perhaps I
just shouldn't have raised the subject in the first place. Sheesh.
> DMB says:
> Oh, don't get me started. I'll write all day. Let me just say that I
thought
> FIGHT CLUB wasn't just smart, it was psychologically profound. But so are
> lots of myths. I'm not so sure that makes them intellectual. Intellectuals
> can get a "fix" from it, but the viewer has to bring it with them. Stories
> don't explain ideas, they can only portray them, show them, play them out.
>
We're back to a discussion of what counts as the fourth level, which is a
whole new thread. Are you saying that stories are necessarily
non-intellectual? Do you agree with Bo on the SOLAQI question? Are we saying
that only something either wholly or partly academic counts as fourth level?
That's quite an important thing if we are.
BTW what's your screenplay about? Are you trying to put any ideas across or
just pandering to the social level? ;-)
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT