Bill writes:
>It isn't unreasonable to read it in perspective.
I have no objection to it being read in perspective. What I object to is not basing a critique on the cinematic evidence up on the screen.
> The wider picture is the real world in which it was
made and in which it will be viewed.
I agree and this is where I feel Joanna errs.
There is the discussion to be had as to how a film will be received. Now, MDB may well be received as an anti-working class movie. My problem with Joanna's logic is that she wants to ground that argument in the film itself by saying that Eastwood intended the film to be anti-working class. As I have said in previous posts, I find no indications/ evidence in the mise en scene that this is true.
I agree with Joanna that some will take the film to be anti-working class. Some people take SpongeBob SquarePants to be queer. But one individual's misunderstanding of an artist's work does not mean that the artist intended that misunderstanding.
> One neither has to simply accept the real world as
natural or neutral, as you seem to do in this instance,
Could you explain what you mean here. It is not clear to me.
> But the issues don't go away, what issues you
choose to ignore make an implied statement, one
way or another.
But the problem is that Joanna has to willfully misread the film to make her point. Frankie/Eastwood is clearly working class, and Joanna must deny the facts of mise en scene in order to turn him into a representative of the managerial class so that she can then impose her reading on the film. Films are open to more than one reading, but when you distort the facts of the film to make your case, then your case is meaningless.
> Do you get it?
Get what. You are unclear.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister