> >Surely you're familiar with leftist academic status compensation.
>
> Oh boy am I ever.
>
> >You
> >may, of course, argue this is not such an instance, but it sure smells
> >like it from here in Californ-I-A.
>
> Nope, just me being pissy. As for status, if I *had* such anxieties, I
> promise you I wouldn't be working them out here or on you or Carl. I'd
> have to go piss on other academics, wouldn't I?
If it were a rational process, sure. But that's precisely the point. It's NOT!
> >> >But that's NOT what Carl actually said, it's a considerable
> >> >embellishment, courtesy of you. Carl simply wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>The art of special effects has advanced at the expense of
> >> >>characterization and plot development. Movies have contributed
> >> >>vastly to the domination of imagery over the written word and
> >> >>to the stupefaction of people in general.
> >> >
> >> >I would agree with this as an almost trivially obvious statement.
> >>
> >> Here's where we disagree. I would like to see this statement
> >> actually argued for, demonstrated, substantiated, rather than
> >> hearing about its obviousness. As Stuart Hall says, "what's
> >> most obvious is what's most ideological." Other writers on
> >> ideology make a similar point.
> >
> >It's also trvially obvious that California is hotter in the summer than
> >it is in winter. Is that ideological, too?
>
> Sure, but movies and the weather have some important differences.
SURE? Sure it's ideological that California is hotter in the summer than it is in winter? HOW???
> >Depending on the degree of rigor you require, this could well be a
> >lifetime project. Sorry, but I decline. I'm busy. I'm trying to find
> >ways to get thru the stupefaction you assure me doesn't exist. I note
> >that this is a qualitatively DIFFERENT kind of struggle than back in the
> >Twilight Zone days.
>
> Sure, I'll go with that, but I don't think it's because of the change in
> the narrative style of televised and filmed science fiction.
Not because of that alone. That's not my argument. Here I'm taking two illustrative examples for purposes of comparison, and you're reframing it as if I'm reducing everything to this single cause. There's one streak in your line of argumentation which does this over and over again, and this is what I responded to incredulously in the first place.
> >> Carl's claim and your reassertion are not obvious to me.
> >
> >Not obvious what we're saying or not obviously true?
>
> Thanks for asking. Not obviously true.
So what do you think as an alternative? I want to try to understand what we disagree about.
> >> His claim about the web being the revenge of the literate
> >> (revenge against whom?) is both factually incorrect and
> >> rather curious given his general suspicion of images.
> >
> >I think it's a case of naively appealing optimism. It reminds me of
> >1992 or 3. I wish I could share his simple faith, I really do.
>
> Me too.
>
> >> But then, maybe *I've* been stupefied by watching the Matrix!
> >> I should have thought of that sooner. This is your big chance
> >> to get me back on track.
> >
> >But I didn't think "The Matrix" was stupefying. Didn'tcha read my post
> >comparing it to Philip K. Dick? I'm not down on special effects per
> >se. It's just that almost all moviemakers can't hold their liquour.
>
> Yes, though I'd forgotten it was you. Even if you liked the Matrix,
> though, I think we're still having the same disagreement. I don't think
> I'd use the word stupefying to describe a film.
Why not? What other adjectives would you find philosophically impermissible to use regarding a film? book? symphony? rock'n'roll song?
> >> >It's a LONG way aways from claiming "that any film with
> >> >narrative and character development makes people smart."
> >>
> >> No, but it does claim that movies contribute to making people stupid.
> >> That's straight outta Carl's quote.
> >
> >To the extent that special effects have pushed everything else to the
> >side.
>
> I still disagree. If you want to object to special effects because they're
> an incredible waste of money, I'd be down with that. But arguing that a
> particular film or group of films is stupefying because they don't justify
> their use of special effects with narrative and character development is a
> different matter. I can only imagined this reasoned out through a really
> simplistic theory of media effects, which is why -- rather than assuming
> that little bit -- I've spent this and the last message trying to get you
> to explain how a group of films can make people, well, less intelligent.
Well, some media effects really ARE simplistic.
For example, in _The Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good_,Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella reported finding that a single strategically-framed (as opposed to an issue/content-framed) story can produce a statistically significant cynical response.
Of course, this is a minute effect compared to the cumulative influence of hundreds of movies over the course of decades.
> >Note that I have explicitly identified narrative intelligence as
> >just one form -- albeit a crucial one for the purposes of sustained
> >critical thought.
>
> I don't think the kinds of narrative skills one develops from watching
> movies are the same things as the kinds of critical skills one develops
> thinking, talking, and in some cases reading to educate onesself about the
> power differences in our society and their causes.
What kind of proof do you have of this assertion? It seems extremely implausible on the face of it, given the obvious influence that films have on people's political reasoning. (All those MIA/POW films, for example.) If people transfer content from fictional films into the realm of reasoning about real-world politics, then your theory is that they are also transfering this content to a different set of narrative skills. This seems unlikely, and in need of serious support.
> >> I think he's wrong, and I'd like to see that assertion backed
> >> up with something other than reassertion.
> >
> >And I’d just LOVE to be proven wrong. I’m always rooting for the
> >triumph of intelligence.
>
> I'd love to prove you wrong, but you've got to give me an actual argument
> to argue with. To use your metaphor, it's like if you told me the sky was
> red, and this was obvious to you, and asking me to prove to you that it
> wasn't without any further explanation or justification. I need some
> reasoning or I can't do more than repeat my request to explain your claim.
> I've got a few more pointed questions below.
Well, I've given you something to argue with. More (about the rest of your post) to follow.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"