bordwell film criticism vol27 no3 winter-spring 1993 93

5/17/2018 Bordwell Film Criticism Vol27 No3 Winter-Spring 1993 93

IVol. XVII, No. 2-3 Winter /Spring,

I N T E R P R E T A T IO N t ] IN C .Issues In Contemporary Film Studies

R ick A ltm an ~ D av id B o rdw e lE dw a rd B ran igan ~ D av id C ook

Thom as E isae sse r ~ E . A nn K ap la nB ruce K aw in ~ R obe rt R ay

R ob in W ood


Film InterpretationRevisitedDavid B ordw ell

Afterpeople see a film,they often talk about it. Sometimes theywrite or give lectures about it . At least some of the things people say orwrite count es interpretations in anybody's sense of that term. Butwhatenables people to produce those linguistic constructs we call filminterpretations? What are, we might say, the psychological, social, andhistorical conditions which make this possible?It was this question which led me to write Making Meaning:Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema (1989; hereaf-ter MM). There I tried to set out a theoretical analysis of the activityoffilminterpretation. I take this opportunity to summarize and clarifytheposition staked out there, to examine some objections made to it, andto concludewith some general thoughts about "Interpretation, Inc." andthe current state of filmstudies.

1.Before tracing the argument, it is useful to say what it doesn'tdo. It is not centrally a history or analysis or diagnosis of academic filmstudy, as some readers (and some writers in these pages) have thought.Certainly I argue that i f we are to understand the conditions ofpossibility of interpretation, we must take into account the socialinstitutionof academic film studies. That institutionhas played a crucialrole in establishing and monitoring interpretive activities. But toconsider all the factors which impinge on the practical teaching of filmwould not have been pertinent to my enterprise. MM is a history ofacademic film study only insofar as that study is bound up withinterpretation.

93


Interpretation remains a vast and controversial topic in thehumanities.' MM does not tackle many of the knotty philosophicalproblems in the literature. Here is one duster: Can an interpretation b etrue or false, valid or invalid? Or are interpretations only plausible orimplausibler" MM remains agnostic on this issue. What interested mewas how even far-fetched interpretations could be produced andpromulgated within a disciplinary field."

Here is another cluster of philosophical problems, much dis-cussed in the literary community {particularly in the wake ofdeconstruction)." Can no interpretation be invalid? Can the text bearan infinity of interpretations? If not, how many interpretations arepermissible? On what grounds can one justify excluding an interpreta-tion? Once again, N IM holds these questions in abeyance, for they bearon the right or best way of doing interpretation-something to whichI don't have an answer-rather than on the principles and proceduresby which actual interpretations, good or bad, are generated anddisseminated.

Some clarity may be gained if I restate the project's logic in afashion different from that set out in the book. Consider, then, achoice-chart which allows us to plot the assumptions behind the bookand the alternative positions which I can imagine. Each of the sevenquestions which follow allows us to get more specific about the book'sargument while also marking off alternative positions.1. Is it fruitful to consider film criticism a reasonably distinctpractice within all writing and teaching about cinema?

MM assumes that it is.5 If you think not, you are in effect sayingthat it is not fruitful to distinguish, atleast approximately, among, say,film criticism, film theory, and film history. I have not seen any explicitarguments along these lines.2. Is it fruitful to consider interpretation a reasonably distinctpractice within film criticism?

If you think not, I suppose that two principal positions are opento you.

The first is an "everything is messy" position: Who can distin-guish interpretive activities from all the other activities which criticsperform? It's all criticism, and there is no principled way to distinguishinterpretation from, say, description, analysis, or evaluation.

Several considerations militate against this view. Most evidently,al l practicing critics draw such distinctions even if they do not acknowl-edge them explicitly. No critic thinks that saying "The God /a th er is a

94


95

antacitly distinguish ntOln"'\r)'t",,,-works .position takes the view that interpretation is not a

reasonably d is tinc t p rac ti ce w ithin f ilm criti ci sm because film criticismis w ith interpretation. That Hamlet has five that itw as published in 1603 in a "bad quarto," that its hero been as tu de nt, tha t its hero has an O ed ipus complex, that the play anallegory of the inad equacy of language to the w o rld -, any s tatem entyou w ish to m ake about the play counts as interpretation.Why wo uld an yon e be liev e th is ? S ociolog ic ally, pe rh ap s wh at Is hall be calling interpretation has been s o central to criticis m in thehum anities that interpretation has com e to be synonym ous w ithcriticis m I tself . But there other reasons as w e lt,Ih in k, a nd th ey re stu pon a c erta in equ iv oc atio n.S om e people s ay that every perceptual act is s hot through w ithU in te rp re ta tion" becau~ ther e is n o in no ce nt e ye, th at ev ery o bs erva -tion is " th eo ry -lad en ," th at eve ry s ta temen t p re suppos es a con stru al o fth e wo rld an d of la ng ua ge . A ll th e s e a s su m p t io n s s eem to me v ery lik elytrue, but "interpretation" used in this sense dow n to denotinga s et o f a ss ump tions ,. p re suppos itions , c atego rie s, b elie fs , and th e like.MM argues that s uch conceptual s tructures are ind eed ingred ient tocritical'interpretatiorfin the narrow er That in order to makea s ta temen t a bout a (dm 's a bs tra ct mean in gs , o ne mu st h av e c ate go rie sa nd con cepts , a nd a t le as t s ome p re lim in ary s ortin g o f d ata . C a U al l thisb ackg round s tru ctU re /" in te rp re ta tion" if you lik e, but th en recogn izethat I am us ing interpretation in a d ifferent (and no commonlyaccepted) sense, Ills fallacious to claim that because everythinginvolves 'lnterpretation" in the broad es t sens e, it is im pos sible tod is ti ngu ish an ac tiv ity w e can ca ll , in te rp re ta tion in the narrow er sense."Contrary these tw o views. J \ 4 M a ss umes th at in te rp re ta tion canbe tr ea ted a s a d is tin ct p ractic e w i th in fUmc ritic ism . It i s dis t inguishedon tw o d imens ions . Both seem to me to accord w ith trad itionalh ermeneutic d is tin ctio ns a nd w i th curre nt c ritic al th in kin g and u sage .F irs t, h ermeneu tid ans have long d is tingu is hed between " lite ra l"construels and .others w h ich go beyond the " letter" of the text (MM ,l A A 2 ) . I call the form er " comprehension." T hat is , s om e beliefs or talka bo ut a film p os tu lates s ometh in g c on crete ly th ere-s ay , th e c ha ra c-ters represented , the action of the s tory, and the d ram atic point ors ignif icance of it aU .C ompre he ns io n gras ps the mean in gs d eno te d b y


the text and its w o rld . H ere are s om e exam ples :In this scene, Roger Thornhill is trying to evade thec rop-du s ting p lane ,Do ro thy'S "There's no p la ce like home" ls the m oral of th emovie.

Inte rp re ta tion, by con tr as t, a sc ribes abstract a nd non litera l meaningsto the film and its world . It as cribes a broad er s ignificance, gO ingbeyond the d enoted w orld and any d enoted m essage to posit im plicitor sym ptom atic m eanings at w ork in the text.I n th is s cene , Roge r Thornh ill is pursued by a phantom ofthe father he is s eeking.D oro th y's " Th ere's n o p lace l ike home" is the attem pt ofthe d iscourse to repress the d isruptive challenge to d o-mestic life represented by the utopia of Oz and theth reaten in g moth er fig ure o f th e W ick ed W itch .

As th es e hypothetic al example s ind ic ate , in te rp re tiv e s ta temen ts o ftenpiggyback on com prehens ion; to cons truct a s ym ptom atic read ing ofThe W izard of O z, o ne m ak es as sump tio ns ab ou t w h at i t . s a y s explicitly.P le as e notic e that the comprehens ion/in te rp re ta tion d is tin ctiond oes not m ap s traightforw a rd ly onto the d is tinction betw e en expert-encing the fllm on the firs t pass and reflecting upon it a t le is u re .Comp re he ns io n may be cen tr al to o rd inary v iew ing , but c er ta in g roupso f v iew ers m ight w e ll m ake in te rp re tiv e move s whUew a tc hin g a film forthe f ir st time . (I am s ure th at s om e p ro fes sio nal critics d o.] S im ilarly ,s ome f ilm s may we ll re qu ire in te rp re tiv e le ap s f or th eir f ull e njo ymen tor satis faction, in w hich case com prehension takes one only so far.(T hes e film s are o ften "art m ov ies " o r ex perim en tal fllrn s.)T he comp reh en sio n/ in terp retatio n d is tin ctio n allow s u s to s eeth at c on stru in g in te rp re ta tio n only in th e b ro ad s en se w i ll n o t d o ju stic ed is cr im inab le c la ims that people make . I f in te rp re ta tion comes downto all s orts of judgments of significance, or of any kind , thenof course comprehension is "interpretation" But preservea u se fu l a nd h ab itu al d is tin ctio n between, s ay , f ollow ing th e s t o r y andascribing an abstract, implicit o r symptomatic, meaning story,by using the concept of interpretation in a narrow er sense,When talking about activities , it is als o us eful d is tinguis hinterpretation from evaluation and critics w ill, I think,w ith claim that an interpretation is


97

Yet there a d ifference betw een pointing outnent relations of parts w holes (analys is) and positing abstractm eanings (interpretation)., Y o u can analyze com position color ina painting. m elod ic m otifs and harm onic texture in a musical piece,prosody and plot in literature, and so on. Y our analys is need not beg uid ed by in te rp re tiv e a ss ump tio ns (u sin g in te rp re ta tio n in th e s en seI have adopted ), and there need not be an in te rp re tiv e payof f. I f yous how patterns in the s patial relations of shots acros s a s equence, youare prod ucing an analys is . Y ou m ay m ake the interpretive move ofascribing an abs tract m eaning to the patterns you d isclose, but youcould also s tay at the analytical level, perhaps by d iscuss ion ofd en ota tiv e and d ie ge tic f un ctio ns wh ich th es e p atte rn s p erf orm .Again , d i sti ngu ish ing int erpreta tion f rom analys is i s tr ad it ional . 7Some may f in d ana ly sis a rid o r b orin g 8 and find interpretat ion excit ing .Bu t d is p ar ag ing ana ly sis in f avor o f in te rp re ta tion p re suppos e s th at th ed is tinction betw een the tw o hold s good , and that is aU I need at thisstage.

3.Doe. Interpretation. like other activities, depend upon acharacteristic set of skIU.?Hammering a nail grasping the hammer, lining up thenail, m aking a few s trokes w ithout w hacking the fingers that ares te ad yin g th e n ail, an d h ittin g th e n ailh ea d s tra ig ht a nd tru e. Makin gaf is h bow l d is ap pea r d ep en ds o n tim in g .g es tu re s, m is dire ctin g th eaud ie nc e, a nd trip pin g mech an ism s th at w i ll c re ate th e illu sio n.?Bo thhammering a naUand do ing s tage mag ic a re s k illed activ itie s, a lthoughone may be fairly to Jearn and the other maybe very hard ,MM assum es film interpretiJtion, cons idered as a practice,re qu ire s a c hara cte ris tic s et o f s kills . F or e xamp le , c ritic s compa re afUm 's b eg in nin g w i th its e nd in g; th ey a sc rib e th eme s to f ilm s ; th ey f in dp atte rn s o f motifs a nd fm in g ap s. A t le as t s ome o f th es e s kills a re lik elyto be learned . though necessarily in form al teaching situations .Moreover, they can in greater or degrees of adequacy.O ne can be m ore less skH lful interpreting film s, h amm ering nails ,o r makin g th in gs d is ep pe ar.I suppose that this prem ise could be denied , but I cannotpres ently s ee any ground s for it .


4. Are at least someof the skills and practices characteristicof Interpretation conceptual?MM takes th e v iew that a ll c ritic ism invo lv es d e lib era tiv e activ itT he critic selects a film , thinks about it, fram es comments about iInterpretation, as a part of criticism , m ust be conceptual too. M ors trongly, MM argues that interpretation requires som e particularaltho ug h n ot n ec es sarily u niqu e, c on ce ptu al s kills . F or ins ta nc e, thc ritic mu st n otic e ana lo gie s, re ca ll e xempla rs , c ompare momen ts in thf ilm , frame a n arg ument, an d s o on . T hes e a ctivitie s in vo lv e co nc ep tsItwou ld b e pos sib le to a rg ue th at n o con cepts media te th e exe rc iso f in te rp re tiv e s kiD .A Wi ttg en ste in ian might take th e v iew that one " jugo es o n," as a ca rp en ter or mag ic ian m ig ht, w ith ou t an y th eo rie s a bo uw hat one is doing. But note here that I am not suggesting that thesconcep ts a re theoretical. In d eed , it is in gred ient to my cas e a t la te r s tageth at many skills cha racte ris tic o f in te rp re ta tion a re conceptu al Wi thobeing theoretical. T hey are often "intuitive"-not in the sens e that nconcepts are required , but in the sens e that the concepts in play are sf am ilia r th at o ne c an app ly th em w i th ou t c on sc io us a tte ntio n. P re sumably intui tion is th ou gh t, a nd emplo ys con cepts .5. Are the conceptual skills and practices significantly cognitive and rhetorical?

" C oq n i n v e " here carr ie s no doctrin al we i gh t I t demarca tes CEr tak ind s o f men tal activities: informat ion-gathering , argument- framing,d e lib era tion, r ea soning, in fe rence, ju dgment, d eba te , and comparabla ctiv itie s. You c an g rant th at th es e a re cognitiv e w i th ou t s ub sc rib in gany particula r th eo re tic al exp lana tion for th em . (F reud has one accounP ia ge t a no th er.] S im ila rly , ifw e s imp ly a ss ume rh eto ric to b e th e c ra ftp ers ua siv e d is co urs e, w e a re n ot y et a ss um in g any p artic ula r rh eto ricth eo ry for d e sc rib ing o r ana ly zing it.You don 't h av e to embra ce a th ic k-s kin ned ra tio na lis t p os itio ng rant th at cognitiv e f acultie s p laya s ignif ic an t r ole in in te rp re ta tion.tum , I f reely g rant th at th e c riticmigh t choos e to In te rp re t a f ilm becau ss /h e love s it, an d th at lo ve may n ot b e re du cib le to co nc ep tu al, let alo ncognitiv e, f ac to rs . B y th e s ame to ken, th ough , we n eed not s ha rp ly s pemotio na l f rom cognitiv e p ro ce ss es . You cho se th e f ilm out o f lo ve ; bs tiU ,you d io se, and the w eighingof alternatives ,of cos1sand benefit s ,mawe ll h av e s haped th e d ec is io n. Mo reov er, to lo ve a f ilm in vo lv es makinconceptua l judgments ( tha t th is is a c erta in s ort o f f dm , th at it has cert aq ua litie s, th at c erta in ex pre ss iv e s ta te s a re p re se nt in it, a nd s o o n).IOThe view advanced in / V I M is th is : I nte rp re ta tion o f th e s or t wh i cout to explain involve activities .While they


99

in a nnl .....!:lnrl.....nthe same in the same ("!'.On!".:>


d raw s on a broad ly "cognitlvlst" p ers pec tiv e to a naly ze an d e xp laincharac te ri s ti c interp re tive moves .The re is a w i d es pr ea d a ss ump tio n th at c ognitiv is tth eo riz in go fth is s ort is w h olly a nd o nly p sy ch olo gica l. T his a ss umptio n I s false. uThe co gn itiv is t fram e o f re fe re nce h as eme rg ed in s oc io lo gy , c ultu ra lan th ropology , ph ilosophy , l ingui s ti cs , and the h is tory.of sc ience . .Whatd is tin gu is hes th is p ers pe ctiv e, I th in k, is th e b elief th at p ro ce du re s o fr ea son ing (no t n eces s ar ily logical re as on in g) an d men ta l represents-tio n p lay a c ru cia l ro le in s oc ia l an d cu ltu ra l a ctiv itie s. In th is re sp ec t,the assumption is parallel to that w hich has governed much filmth eo rizin g s in ce th e m id - 1 97 0s -th at p sy ch ic p ro ce ss es p lay . a cru cialro le in th e s ame sorts o f a ctiv itie s, an d th at F reud ia n/La cania n p sy ch~analysis shed light on that role. Cognitive processes are shared bys oc ial a gen ts , a nd s ome c og nitiv e c ap ac itie s (e . g ., g rammar) emerg eonly in a s oc ia l c on te xt. Cognitiv e a ctiv itie s a re in d iv idu al a nd colle c-tiv e, p ers on al a nd s ocial a ll at o nc e.I w ould encourage som ebod y w ho has com e this far d ow n thechoice-chart's path but w h o find s A nsw er no. 6 unacceptable to offera non -cognitiv e account o f i nte rp re tiv e cognition. The evident a lte rn a-tive is som e conative, or d rive-centered account, and an obviouscand id ate w o uld is sue from s om e vers ion ps ychoanalys is . P erhapssuch an account w ou ld t rea t interpret ive ac tivi ti es as . involvingdefense ,repres sion, and s ublim ation. I am not aw a re that any s uch accountfilm interpretation has ever been launched . I w o uld be interes ted ins eeing one w o rked out to the sam e d egree of d etail pres ented in MM .

7.Does Making Meaning's version of a "cognitivist theory dothe job? That is, does it offer an adequate analysis and expla-nation of the characteristic cognitive skills and activitiesinvolved in interpretation?We com e to the m arrow of the book.

L et us take as an exam ple of film interpretation the rem arks onSalo offered by Hobin W ood in his They are sketchy and do notmanif es t th e r an ge and r ic hn es s o f wh ich f ilm in te rp re ta tio n is c ap ab le ;but it w ill s erve as a quick exam ple.Wo od inquires as to w h at could haveand d epres sion he felt in s eeing the film . jjW llat Salo that noother f ic t ionalf i lm (to my knowledge)ha" idone?" Hsenswer is th at t heobUges spectator to in a of w ield ing U'Lf"'''''',",,''''''


for"......,nnlil"lOIID .,..,.,,,,,,,


physical qualities . They are w hat MM caUs schemata: knowledges tructures w h ich s ocial agents possess in ord er to actT hes e schem ata are part and parcel of the critics 'equipm ent.S om e, s uch as the id ea of id entification, are rather specialized to thecrit ica l i ns titu ti ons . Many come Jn to play in w h at I am calling compte.h en sio n. (Comp rehens io n is p artly a cognitiv e p ro ce ss tOO . 12 )No te th atWood d id not have to select these particular s chem ata; he could haveelaborated a contrast betw e en colors in the film ,(tf betw e en tall andsho rt cha racte rs ; th at is , he c ou ld ha ve d eploy ed a n in de fin ite ly la rgenumber of other s chem ata. B ut the schem ata he employs correspondto th os e c irc ula tin g in th e f ie ld a nd me sh w i th th e la rg e@s cales emanticfields he m aps onto the film .Wood a ls o emplo ys re as on in g ro utin es . H e in fe rs th e cha ra cte rs 's tates of m ind from their appearance and behavior, and then heass um es that thos e s tates of m ind are to b e ta ken a s con trib utin g to th efilm 's broad er im plication. T hus the fascis ts are s aid to be aw a re thattheir pow e r is only an illusion, and this quality of illusory s pectaclefigures in the interpretation. W ood also assum es that w hen a filmsupplies a character's point of view that w e are to identify w ith thatch aracter, no matte r how rep ellan t, H e as sume s tha t p hy sica l d is ta nceis paralleled by emotional "d is tance" (" cold nes s"), While physicalp roximity . c reate s, in d eed enforces , s ome p sychological in timacy w i thcha ra cte rs , h owev er d is tu rb in g th is may be.MM calls such reas oning routines heuristics. Based more incommon experience than d ed uctive logic, they are proced ures w h ichco nn ec t tex tu al c ue s, s ch emata, an d s eman tic fie ld s, S ome a re e ultur-aUy w id es prea d; o the rs are s pe cialize d, d omein -s pec if lc s trateg ies .In fe rring s ta te s o f mind f rom cha racte rs ' a ctions is a very broad hum anr ea so .n ing s tra tegy , but a sp iring c ritic s mus t le ar n th at th e f llm may a ls obe "about" the general aspects o.f these states of m ind .Wo .o d's remark s o n Salo exemplif y th e p ro blem -s olv in q p ro ce ssw h ich MM a rgu es to b e at th e ce nter o f film in terpre ta tio n . .P ro dd ed b ya question, W o.od fastens on cues w ithin the film and m aps sem anticfield s onto. them w ith the aid of schem ata and heuris tics . H e is r igh t to .s ay th at th is is n ot th eo .re tic alwo rk , s in ce h e make s n o e ff ort to . an aly zeth e con cepts h e emplo .y s (ma sculin ity , O ed ip us , f as cism ) and s in ce n osuch ana ly sis is n ec es sa ry to a f re sh and p la us ib le in te rp re ta tio .n .My l n v o ca t i o n o f s emantic f ie ld s, s ch ema ta , a nd h eu ris tic s ra is esone common ob j e c t i o n , All these are in a sense "cutside" the film ; Ito .b e a rg uin g th at th e c ritic " irn po se s" s tru ctu re s o .fmeanin g onth e f i lm ra th er th an d is co .v eringmean ings in th e f I l m or let ting meaning


nothow could they? anand film . W hat the brings to this engagementis human percep tu al eq uipm ent, cu ltu ral exp erien ce an d values , tacitn orm s of comprehens io n, an d a reperto ry o f know led ge s tructu res andcritical proced ures for build ing interpretation out of cues w h ich s heor he d iscrim inates in the film . W e d on't jus t see m eanings, U teral orin te rpre tive ; the c ri ti c constructs meaning through a com plex processof assum ption, testing, projection, inferential trial and error, andcom parable activities. B oth com prehension and interpretation arein fere ntia l ac tiv ities . Meaning is mad e, n ot fo und.So, an objector m ight ~k, w here do new meanings come from?A ccord ing to MM , it m ight seem that the critic can only see w hat s/heis primed and prepared to see. But to say that people perceive andund ers tan d th rough men tal c on stru cts --c ategories , as sump tio ns , an dthe like-is not to say that they d on't expand their cognitive repertoireth rough encounte r with the w o rld . OUf cognitive res ources are notcookie cutters , and the w orld is not soft dough; w e d o, n ot. stam p outthe s~me shape in eve.ry transaction w ith reality. W hen w e learnanything, on this account, w e start w ith rough and approximateco ns tru cts . We increas e them in n umber or ex pand th eir s cop e or refinethem in delicacy as w e find that they do not discrim inate suffid entlyamong the d ata w e encou nter. T hu s th e critic con fron ts w h at MM calls"recalcitran t d ata," w h ich fo rces her or him to ad ju st or rev is e or rejectoverly s imple fr~mes referene. The institution of c ritic ism , byins isting on nuance and com prehensivenes s as criteria of good criti-c ism , lik ew i s e exe rc is es some pre ssure not to tre at f ilm s too reductively .

This obje ction Is related to. another one: Film s. und eniablyprovoke us to create n~ interpr(!tations , but the account in MM takesas Usmod el the mo s t f o rmu l a i c " read in gs ," n ot th e ones wh ich s tru gg leto achieve ~ com plex and rich coherence. True, MM set out to talkabou t interpretatio n in general, n ot o nly the b es t or m os t en lig hten in ginterpretations. Still, the book does propose that the variety andrichne ss o f critic al in terp reta tio ns c ome f rom an in te rp la y o f s ch emataand s em an tic fjeld s. T he exp ert critic has m as tered s everal p ro du ctiveresources of m aking m eaning and is able to m esh th~m in a w ay w hichc ap tu re s a g re at d ea l o f th e tex t's d eta il. But th is s kill relies n on eth eles son the s am e basic m oves executed by les s skilful critics .W ood 's remarks on Salo also exem plify the rhetorical sid e ofinterpretation. H e w rites in an effort to persuad e, and the argum ent isstructured to faciUtate that He employs a persona-the left-w ingintellectual acu tely co ncerned abou t the s tate of the w o rld -an d b uild s

103


u p th e eth os o f th is p ers on a th ro ug h lin gu is tic d ev ices . H e als o _ _..." ,.""an intim acy w ith the read er by taking the read er into his confid ence,tracin g th e flu ctu atio ns in h is attitu des tow ard th e f i lm , B y using "w e"to d escribe the reactions and construals of his posited spectator, hecreates a s en se th at s ev eral s pectato rs res po nd to th e fi lm in the w ay hed elineates , and the pronoun is us efully am biguous in s ugges ting thatW ood 's persona speaks for his relation to a group and /or his relationto th e read er.Im not s aying that in us ing thes e rhetorical res ources Wood isins incere . Rhetor ic is not s imp ly a n eu tra l to ol; it can b e g uid ed b y d eepfeelin gs an d p as sio nate comm itm en t. B ut rh eto ric is communication,an d th e rh eto r mus t ex ercis e sk i l l in o rd er to mov e th e .read er o r lis ten erto w ard the pos ition ad vocated . N o one can read Wood 's p iece w ith outs eeing it, Ihink, as overtly and pow erfuU y rhetorical, us ing m anyresources of language and inference to w in the spectator to his view ,And his rem arks on Sal0 s eem u tte rly ch ara cte ris tic o f th e rh eto ric als id e o f film in terp retatio n, at leas t as MM u nd ers tan ds th em ,There is of course more to be commented on in Wood 'sd iscuss ion of the film . Im particularly interested in the s trategy,common in pos t~ 1960s film interpretation, of find ing that w h ereaSs ome film s mus t b e read s ymptomatically in o rd er to rev eal th eir g ras pof socia l cont rad ic tions ( is Glslight an ex ample fo r Wood ?), o th er film ssuch as Salo, h av e alread y ach iev ed th at g ras p, are n ot read s ymptom .attcally, and are Ins tead treated as im plicitly d elineating the so clalcontrad ictions . But sure ly Solo cou ld a ls o b e re ad symptomatic ally , bys omeone w i th a no th er conce ptio n o f s tra teg ic ally a dju ste d eontredk-t t o n s . (See MM, pp. 100-104,,)F in ally! on e m ore po int m us t b e s tr es s ed . The in fe rentia l me t e -rials and m oves I've traced -conceptual s tructures like s ch emata an ds eman tic field s, p ro ced ures lik e h eu ris tics , rh eto rical s trateg ies an dtactk ..s --all are n ot m erely p sy ch olo gical b ut eq ually an d th oro ug hlys oc ia l. In te rp re tiv e s kills a re f ormed in a nd tra nsm itte d th rough I ns t l t u -lions . Schem ata and s em antic field s and heuris tics are s hared . Sornemay be " contin ge nt univ ers als ," cross-cultural m odes of thought andthat arise from the d em and s of collective hum an life (e.g., thep e r s o n - s c h ema ) . O thers are d oubtles s s pecific to certain cultures orhistorical periods.Schemata , s emantic f ie ld s , an d h eu ris tic s a ch iev e th eir c og en cyand convincingnes s through read ers and lis teners ' tacit ""t"W,OOI"t'U3they are prom oted or rejected b y s ocial groups . I t is no d is par agementof W ood 's remarks to that their inferential havew ithin ins titutions film


fields,em ployed in W ood 's brief C lIS< :USSilonacadem ic study t3,

Most theories don't survive long, so the are agains t MM' sb ein g rig ht Ina U or even m ost respects , The assum ptions I've sketchedout in the choice~chart m ay not be wa te rtig ht, a nd it is s till l es s lik ely th atthe detailw ork of the book-the item ization of m ajor sem antic field s ,schem ata, heuris tics , and rhetorical s trategies-is invulnerable tocriticism . I w ant here to consider the most vigorous and sw eepingcriticism that the book's argum ent has received .

In a review essay , V . F . Perkins has offered many specificobjections , several unfortunately res ting on m is lead ing accounts ofMM' s posltton." H e also raises some issues w hich I have d iscussedearlier in this essay, and some w hich I w ill add ress in the follO Wingsection, In this section I w ant to outline and respond to w hat r take tobe strong objections to som e of MM's key arguments .

M ost centrally, P erkins cas ts d oubt on the d is tinction betw eencom prehension and interpretation by sugges ting that there is only"overt m eaning," of at leas t that this is the only sort thatw orthw hileint erpr et at ion concen tr at es on." H e begins his piece, m uch as W oodbegins his ess .ay in this is sue, w ith a tritical d iscuss ion. H e d escribes ascene in C auglrlt .i n w hich the protagonis t Leonora tells Sm ith O hlrigabout her s tud ies at a charm school, Perkins d iscus ses how theperform ance and film ing of the scene reveal the character's beliefs (e.g ., perhaps "the thought of music rem inds Leonora of some oldenchantm ent." p. 1) and suggests the inadequacy of them ('Leonora'sexposition of the value of her education also show s her ignorance ofit s s hall ownes s , n 1). By making this d iscus s ion a prototype of theinterpretive act, Perkins seeks to show that " the meanings I haved iscussed in the Caught fragm ent are neither s tated nor in any specialsense im plied . They are film ed" (4 ).

I think that Perkins ' d iscuss ion of the Caught sequence is per-spicuous , but his remarks do not seem to me characteris tic of filminterpretation. T hey enrich our und ers tand ing of the d iegetic w o rld : ofthe character's beliefs , d ispositions , and personality, as w ell as of hercharacteristic behavior; O phuls ' d irection and Barbara Bel G eddes 'performance prompt us to make meanings , no doubt; but they arewha t MM calls "referential" meanings . That is , they are neither"explicit" nor "im pJicit" in the senses that I have used the term s. 16 In

105


sum , Perkins ' d iscuss ion does not, at leas t in the w ay he broaches it,bear o n th e abs tract m ean in gs o f L eo nora's b eliefs w ith in the film , an dso it fails to count as interpretation on my criterion,So much the w orse for my criterion? I don't think so. A smen tio ne d a bove , c riticism invo lv es mo re th an in terp re ta tio n. I reg ardPerkins ' d iscussion as a d etailed d escription of how the characters 'qua litie s a re r ep re sented. it is f ar le ss in te rp retiv e th an , s ay , h is a cc ountof Psycho in F ilm as F ilm , w hich construes the show er murder as" symbo lic ra pe" a nd " a s ymbolic re birth ." 17 His comments on Caughtful fi ll one sugges tion MMm akes: the study of how film s constructreferential meanings . MMechoes Susan Sontag's call for "a reallyaccu rate, s harp , lo ving d es criptio n o f th e ap pearan ce o f a. w o rk o f art"(p , 264) and sugges ts that there is a need for studying lithe processwhe reby a specta to r con s tr uc ts the film!s w orld and the story that takesp la ce th ere " (271 ).P erk in s WOU ld ,h ow e ver, d is pu te th at any thin g is co ns tru ctedhere: he says that the scene's "m eanings are film ed ." I don't under-s tand this . I und erstand that profllrnlc events , like actors sitting in ahollow car mock -up, c an b e film ed , but I am at a los s to und erstand howmean ings ca n be filmed .IS Perk in s does not anywhere e la1;>o ra teon th isclaim , ad ding immediately: "W hatever else that [his claIm ] m eans(which it is a purpose of criticism and theory to explore), .. "(4 ), I takeit that he offers this as an intuition w h ich critics and theoris ts shouldexamine. Fair enough; but his intuition is not itself an to mythes is that m eanings are inferred from the im ages and sound s on thes cre en . And MMdoes provide a theory to back up this claim .

Perkins goes on to ass ert that i f meanings are film ed , "they arenot hid den in or behind the m ovie, ... I have w ritten about things thatI believe to be in the film for all to see, and to see the sense of' (4)"Rejectin g (rig htly ) the s urface/d ep th an d co ntain er/co nten ts m eta-phors (though, odd ly, claim ing that I believe in them ; see note 14 ),P erk in s re fu se s to cons id er th e a ltern ativ e, dlscussed at length in thebook that he is review ing: that film s are phenom enal objects w hichu s in build ing mean ings th rough constructive in fe rences guidedby conventions .Pe rk ins does , however, take up the of & 1 1 am sure that

the screened d ata can not usefully be represented as pre-packagedw ith a determ ination of w hich items are to serve as (p. Yetassert that stim uli serve as cues does not entail that theypack ag ed ," at if that sugges ts deliberate depth cues invisual w orld not so Moreover, i f Perk in s meansthat filmmaker is thoroughly the ""_.,'.,.


I'T'I::;ULD'I'C! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " "n . - l , , _ (s uc h is th einf.r_r'I'Dp. though, that

and performance and everything m on


per ce iv ing cue s; o therw is e ther e wou ld be no problem wi th recalcit ran td ata (s ee above). Som e perception, for aU i ntents and purpos es, canbe considered "d irect," such as a clunk on the head . But otherp erce ptu al a cts a re h ighly med ia ted by know le dg e a nd . ju dgmen t, an dth e c ognitiv e a ctiv itie s o f in te rp re ta tio n s eem to be p rime c andid ate s(s ee choic e-poln t 5 a bove ).M ost broad ly of all, P erkins and I agree on a great d eal of w hatc ritic ism doe s. He main ta in s, J us tly , th at crltlcs d is agree by virtue ofv alu es a s w e ll a s f ac ts , h old in g d if fe rin g "belie fs abou t th e appropria tev iew ing pers pe ctiv e wh ic h a re g rounde d in ev ita bly in h is to ry " (6 ). Wealso agree that criticism cannot be put on a "sens ible footing" in thes en s e that we . .c ou ld legis la te rule s, p roof s, a nd ironcla d logic . (P e rk in sth in ks I a rg ue fo r s u ch a ch im era, b ut th at's b ecau se h e m is ses my iro nyin th e p as sag e d ted ; p . 2 55 .) What1 vf]v 'fries to d o is s how wh at createsboth c ritic al a greemen t a nd d is ag re ement; h ow belie fs .a bout " appro -p riate v iew in g p ers pectiv es " fu nctio n; w h y ru les an d p ro ofs are o ut o f

p la ce , in th is s o rt o f a ctiv ity .l\1 lV f sa ccount o f c ritic al r e asoning tr ie s top ro vid e an ex plan atio n o f h ow film in terp retatio n wo rk s-its p res up -pos itions , conventions , proced ures-and has w orked in his tory . . Inother w ords , w hat enables a critic like Perkins to grant that hisinterpretation is shaped by "beliefs about the appropriate view ingperspective" w hile s till maintaining that w hen he unders tands acharacter's action he gras ps s om ething in the film " for all to s ee, andto see the sense of'? Perkins grants that w e d o not yet know how sucha thing is po ss ible, but I cannot s ee that he s how s that MM 's cognitivem od el fails to point tow a rd a plaus ible ans w er.5.I have so far touched only on the "subs tantive" part of MM: itsth eo ry and ana ly s is o f f ilm in te rp re ta tion. Bu t ther e is a polem ic al p artas w ell, It is in a sense d etachable {rom the analytical part, as som ereview ers have recognized , but it has left m any readers w ith theirs tronges t impres s ions .BrieflyII a rgue lhat f ilm c ritic ismha s su ff er ed f rom its coneentra-tlon on interpretation, and that film analys is ought to receive m orea tt en tion . Very sk il fu lc ri ti cs (MM cite s Fa rbe r, Bezm, the Maule group,

a nd o th ers ) c an s till b e e xc itin g, but th e p ro lif era tio n o f f ilm ln te rp re -ta tio ns , a nd th e a cad em ic la atio n o f in te rp re tiv e p ra ctic es , h av e mademos t o f c ritic alw r iting f airly p redic table . I s ugge st that we can a sk o therque stlo ns -c -a bout h is to ric al c on tex t a nd s ocia l re ce ptio n, a bout s ty leand structure, about how and unders tand f l l rns=-endcan usefully illuminate as w ell,


an toand u tte rly tnOnl1t"'ll"\r~.nll.na for a "",,,,,i,Ant_ct'in,,,,,, ..... (6). It not an assault on

importance. o f c ritic al eva luation, o r the d is cip line o f . filmthat art history cons is ted principally of res earch intom-n'h_"n~11" and a ll egoricalimagery, o r mu sic h is to ry o f th e s tu dy o f howmusic. Itw ould be jus ti fiable to sugges t:thatw e aJsoought to s t u d y pain ting s ty le s o r mus ic al s tructu re s" and the waysthat they changed through his tory. O f course art his tory and m usich is to ry have long and P o w e r f u l tra ditio ns o f s tu dying f orm -s o powe rfu lthat new currents in each d is cipline are urging a "herm eneutic turn"towa rd in te rp re ta tio n. Bu t f ilm s tu dy p re se nts s ome th ing o f a n inve rs ecase. I therefore argue, as one alternative to interpretation, for a" his to ric al poe tic s" o f f ilm wh ic h c once ntra te s on how f orm , s ty le , a ndmean ing in te ra ct in de fined c ircums tances .

T his in its elf is n o rad ical d ep artu re. Wh ile in terp retatio n h as along his tory in scriptural and legal exeges is , there are trad itions inw h ich analys is , in th e s ens e I have been us ing the concept, h ac; beendominan t. Ancient G reek theo ry o f lite ra tu re , and not only in Aris to tle 'sPoetics, wa s " ce ntrip eta l" in its la ck o f in te re st in un if yin~Jthemes andove ra rching mean ings .20 R uss ian Form alism and som e versions ofFrench Structuralism focused m ore on norm s and conventions ofc ompos itio n a nd s ty le th an on in te rp re tin g te xts . S ome con tempo ra ryfilm scholars share these tend encies , as ~ ind icates (pp. 263*274 ).I d o n ot d en y, h ow e ver, th at MM sug ges ts th at w ith in th e p ro fes -s ion, film interpretation has becom e routinized . O ne can quickenundergradua te s ' i nt eres t With cr it ica lmoves that are long-pract iced,buto ne's s tu den ts are n ot o ne's p ro fes sio nal p eers . I fin d mos t in terp reta-t ions off ered up r igh t now inte ll ec tua lly unexc iting . ]vfM tr ie s to sugges tsom e reasons for hold ing this view , and som e readers have quietlyagreed w ith them , b ut I h ave no U lus io nsthat I can pers uad e m any. M yview is and alw ays w iU be a m inority pos ition in the hum anities . B utd issatis faction w ith one m od e of d iscourse can spur one to exploreothers , and is my hope in making a polemical case in MM .

6.Film stud ies is broad er a d om ain than interpretation, or evencriticism . M ore than ever before, the s tud y of film em braces a w id erange of topics and approaches . W e are getting reliable accounts ofproduction, and exhibition, in many countries and periods ; w e

109


are und erstand ing genres in a variety of cultures and subcultures; w eare w riting s ound and s ensitive his tories of technology and ind ustrialproces ses . N onetheles s, film criticism and interpretation remain thecen tra l a ctiv itie s o f academic , journ alis tic , and uquaU ty " wr iting aboutcinema.S ev eral commen ta tors in th is is sue d ep lo re th e cycle o f " fa shio n-able" theories . Imay be alone in believing that fUmtheory as a d is tinctactiv ity has p layed a compara tiv ely small ro le in recent y ea rs . Issumetheoretical inquiry to be an attem pt to answ er questions about thenatu re , f unctions , and e ff ec ts o f s ome genera l c in ema tic phenomenon .As part o f th is ente rp ris e, th e th eo ris t ana ly ze s concepts and a rgumentsalready in play. Parad igm atic instances of film theory are R udolfAmheim's F ilm a s A rt, Andre Bazin's "Theatre and-Cinema" essay,Christian Metz's "Th e Imag in ary S ig nifie r , " L au ra Mu lv ey 's "Vis ua lPleasure and Narrative Cinem a," Stephen Heath's Q uestions ofCinema, and Noe l C arro ll's M ystify in g M ov ie s.

Ihink it fair to say that very few such publications have latelyg ra ce d our f ie ld . Mo st " th eore tic al" w r itin gs a re fUm in te rp re ta tio nswh ich app ly theo re tical doctrines a rticula ted e ls ewhere . The characte r-is tic s tructure, either of book or article, is to out som e propositionsd erived from a theory, proceed to interpret the film in the light of thetheory, and then conclud e w ith an appraisal of th e theory 's usefu lnessor the film 's ability to illum inate the theory. In ad dition, to speak ofapplying a single theory is m islead ing, for characteris tically theseinterpretations are quite eclectic in their appropriation of concepts ,terms, and arguments . O ne finds, for instance, "use-value" and"defarnlltariainq" used in the same essay as "the split subject" and"[lmlnality." Not only do the concepts go unanalyzed , but theird isparate and even conflicting doctrinal sources are not aeknow l-edged , This is a f airly con stant f ea tu re o f in te rp re tiv e c ritic ism th rough~out the ages,There is reason to believe that this genre of Iitheory . .based"interpretive wri ting is the m ost prom inent one w ithin academ ic films tud ies. I tmay not be numericaUy1!hegreates~ but it certainly commandsco n f e r e n CP,.$, conventions , and pres tig ious jou rnals . In J \ 1 l v 1 Iry to showthat: even th is sor t o f wr iting relie s on pre theo re tical and cross-theoreticalconcepts and tactic s, and th at th es e b ind ra th er th an d if fe rentia te c ritic als ch oo ls , H ere, howev er, Iwant samply to call attention to this theory-b as ed in te rp re ta tio n a s a c en tra l ten dency in th e d is cip line ,O f ten th is app roach i s all ied to p olitic al p os itio ns wh ich c an b ebroadly as left-w ing TIle ' " , t " ' , . . . . " . , ' > t " " "that the

1


LJVlkU ...."'" critique.w i th lef t. .w ing poli tica l andin the field in the 19705, anddisciplinary activity .In th e U nited then, " the field ," as a profess ional d isciplineoperating outs ide an ind ividual classroom , is dom inated bya scholar ly practice"in which "read ing film s" is central. practice is ,doctrinally, som ew hat pluralis tic. (There are a few Jungians andD errid eans out there.) Still, the in terpretive core is occupied by tw os tra in s : a ' human is tic " one ; and a b road ly "cr itic al," l ef t- dis s en ting onerelying more overtly on th eoretical d octrines. T he latter tend en cys eems evid en tly s alien t a t th e momen t, a nd w i th in th is s tra in f em in ismand e thnic ityMand gender~bas ed theo rie s curr en tly p lay p ivota l r ole s.SO l11eonem ay object that the 19708 period of high theo ry has

com e to an end and now theories are invoked chiefly w hen they areu sefu l in h elp in g u s in terp ret tex ts " his to rically ." I w o uld s imply n otethat, tnt, h is to ry is o ften invok4adunde r the rub ric o f theo rie s o f h is to ry(e. g., H ayd en White, B aud rlllard , etc.]; an d s econd , that historicald ata a re o fte n u tiliz ed as e vid en ce fo r th eo ries o f s exua lity , c ultu re , o rthe like.What led to this s tate? J wo uld hypothes ize that the caus es arenot too d ifferent from the proces ses w h ich led to the ris e of " hum an-ls tlc " in te rp re tive f rameworks . i n th .e fum s tud ie s o f the 1960s and ear ly19705 . .Cen te rin g on th e in te rp re ta tio n o f f ilm s g iv es th e d is cip lin e a nobv ious a ff ilia tion w i th o ther text- cente red humanis tic f ie ld s (notablylite ra ry s tud ie s and a rt h is to ry ). New Critic ism , t he dominan t in fluenceo n p os tw a rA ng lo ~Am~rican in terp retatio n, b ecame a cen tral mod elfor f llmstudies ( f \ I fM, 48-53). A s left intel lectualsestablished themselvesin th e a ca demy , a nd a s s ub cu ltu re s p re vious ly c on sid ere d "marg in al"b ecame more v ocal in p olltlcal s ph eres an d p op ular cu ltu re, p artis anin te rp re tive pos itions become more s alient in f ilm .s tud ie s. Indeed , f ilmstud ies , asa young field , w as som ew hat ahead of m ore trad itionald is cip lin es in g iv in g a cen tral p lace to id eo lo gy -b as ed criticism an dtheory. W hat W ood describes the C lub has a s izeable portion,p erh ap s a ma jo rity , in wh ic h h is v is io n o f le ft-w i ngped agogy wou ld b econ s ide red o rthodox.L et us as sum e, how ev er, that, as m any claim , the field is .qu itep lu ra lis tic and decente red . If this is so , w e are confronted w ith thespectacle of people seeking to m ark out id iosyncratic pos itions bycons tructing an o rthodox v iew f rom whi ch lhey may S igna l divergence.

111


I th in k it is fair to say that my w ork is often taken to incarnate thisorthodoxy. Everyone is the hero of his or her ow n autobiography, butfind ing myself am id essays in w hich professors share w ith us theirpedagogical triumphs , their college catalogues, and their intensivereview ing of vid eotapes, I think I'm allow ed tw o pers onal paragraphs .

Several essays-W ood 's here, one by Ray (cited in his essay),many by other hands=-essert that my w ork typifies academic filmstudies." This is sheer fantasy. Very few scholars adhere to thepositions I have articulated on O zu and D reyer, on the nature ofnarration, on s tory and s tyle in the Hollyw ood film , on the process offilm interpretation, and on the usefulness of form -based film analysis .V ery few scholars share the research project of his torical poetics , andeven few er of those pursuing it w ould agree w ith m y formulation of itA s w ith any scholar's contentions, m ine have been open to test,revis ion, appraisal, and criUque.22 In fact, I daresay that no fUmscholar's w ork has received sharper, m ote vociferous , and m ore angrycriticism than has m ine-viz. not only the W ood , Britton, and Perkinsarticles already d iscussed , but essays and books by scholars w ritingfrom virtually all intellec tual and political pos itions a nd repres entingprom inent journals , academ ic ins titutions, and professional associa-tions .23 Wood com plains , w ithout citing any evid ence, that m y cond u-s ions provide scholars opportunities to crank out m echanical copies .V irtually all the evidence I've seen ind icates that m y conclusions haveprovided w riters opportunities to generate a hos t of objections .In one sense this is not surpris ing. I have asked ques tions w hichmatter to me in the hope that they matter to some others , and I h avetried to pursue the questions rigorously and set out the answ ers inpersuasive fashion. But my answ ers have not hew ed to any of thedom inant positions articulated w ithin the field , (IUs here that W oodshould look for essays w hich have generated end lessly proliferating"applications .") To claim that the results have come to typify orcommand the d iscipline is preposterous; to use this claim to glam orizeone's ow n purported rad icality is s elf-serving.

Still, I w ould be the last to deny that people can interpret thingsin d ifferent fashions. This is sue of F U m C ritic is m illus trates the s tar-tlingly diverse w ays in w hich film critics read books . For Robin W oodmy w ork epitom izes bus iness as usual, the of Academe. ToDavid Cook, though, my w ork threatens thirty years of d iscipline-build ing, and MM is a book that no dean should b e allow ed to read."to considering purchasing MM:

on bulk "'''rtf'''''''' UUUIIUI.,Ithis objection

112


in.C!n,orc: rtOQlroC! to p rin t nOC:lK: ! (Ne \.VYo rk: St.M artin's, 1990); J o e l Weinsheimer,PhUos op hic alH erm eneu tic s a nd L itera ry T heo ry (N ew H aven: Y aleUnivers i ty Press , .1991) ; Talbot J. Taylor, Mutua l Misunderstanding:S ce ptic ism and th e T heorizin g o f L anguag e and In te rp re ta tio n (Durham:Duke Univ ers ity P res s, 1 99 2); an d Umberto E co et al., Interpretationand Ouerlnterpretatlon (C ambrid ge: C ambrid ge Univ ers ity Pre s s1992).2 Joseph M argolis for the l'plaus ibility"pos ition in A rt andP hilo so p.h y(A tian tic H ig hlan ds , N ew Jers ey , 1 98 0), p p. 1 07~1 64 .3 F or m y part, I b elieve that there are fals e interpretatio ns , an dthere are approxim ately true ones ; yet w e w ould w ant to call som einterpretations more or plaus ible in the sense in that w e cannotd ecid e ab ou t th eir tru th o r fals ity .

113


4 See for exam ple Umberto E co, The Limits. of Interpretat ion(B looming ton: Ind iana Un iver sity P re s s, 1990) , particular ly Chapters1-4.5 P erhaps D avid C ook, in his paper in this is sue, believes that Ido not d is tinguish am ong these sorts of practices in w r itin g an dteaching about cinem a. I regard Cook's and Bernstein 's w ork

predominantly f i lm his tory , w hi le Stud l a r ' s c ombin es b oth th eo ry an dcriticism. Iake it that D avid C ook d oes d is tinguis h am ong theory,h is to ry , a nd critic ism , a nd in th is w e a gre e.S Som ething like this seem s to be going on in Janet Staiger'scritique of the narrow us age of the term in Interpreting Films : S tud ie sin th e H is to rIc al R ec ep tio n o f Americ an C inema (Princeton Univers i tyPress , 1992), pp, 1821. I cannot see, though, that she offers anyreas ons for w hy w e w o uld not w ant to m ake the d is tinction. Ins tead ,her argum ent consis ts of quotations and paraphras es from various

critics who c la im th at th e d is tin ctio n c an no t b e main ta in ed . B ut n on eof thes e w riters ad dres ses the case that there is a di ffe rence be tw eenconcrete, d enoted m eanings and abs tract, im plicit or s ym ptom aticones , in the sens e Imean here; and m os t us e " interpretation" in thebroad sense, not the narrow one Iurge.7 The mo st c og en t s ta temen t iii in Mon roe Beard sley, Aesthetics:Problems in th e Philo so ph y o fC r it:ic ism (New Yo rk : Ha rcou rt, B ra ce

&World, 1958L pp, 75~77!401-411 .8A good part o f my p ra ctic al c ritic ismha s b een devo te d to tr yin gto show that ifs not.91n his es say in this iss ue, E dw ard B ranigan find s m y analogybetw e en critical interpretation and parlor m agic m is lead ing, s incein te rp re ta tio n do es n ot p ro duc e an illu sio n. I tw as meant, l i ke thi s one,to emphas ize tha t interpretat ion is a s kill,s o th at e ven i f you diS trus t thep artic ula r in te rp re ta tio n p ro duc ed , o r e ven remain s keptic al a bout th een tire p ro ce ss o f in terp re ta tio n, y ou w i ll p ro ba bly ac kn ow l ed ge th ats om e s kill i s neces sary to prod uce one.10 O n the cognitive com ponents in em otion, see RonaldSousa, The Ra tiona lity o f Emo tion (Cambridge : MIT Press , 1987), and

A ndrew O rtony, G erald C lore, and A llan Collins , The Cognitiv eS tru ctu re o f Em otions (Cambridge: ( '. ,ambridgeUnivers i ty 1988) ,A cognitive theory of em otion in cinem a is propos ed in N ool C arroll,The P hilosop hy of H orror: or Paradoxes of the (N ew York:1990), pp. 60~88.II for a m ore

1


112.for a Narration in

nnu:>TCIU o f Wi sc on sin P re ss , 1985) .13 That is , the C lu b. F or th e reas on s alre ad y ad d uc ed , I c an no t s eethat W ood makes rad ical a break w ith academ ic film study asmaintains , s ince he does not repud iate any of the materials orprocedures of interpretation as currently practiced . N or does thepurport of the interpretations them selves break the m old of m anyacad em ic " read ings ." M oreo ver, I w o uld arg ue th at Woo d's po liticalposition is shared by m any in the profes sional coterie he rejects . H em entions pos tm od em lsm and neofo rm alism as o ffen ding trend s, bu tby a nybody 's e stim (ite .th es e a re m inority movemen ts in a ca dem ic f ilmstud ies . Taken all in aU , W ood 's view s are shared by a great m any

m em bers of the C lub.

(Madison:

14 T he es say sv F. Perkins , "M ust W e Say W hat They M ean?Fi lm Cr it ic ism and In te rpreta tion ," Movie no. 34 /35 (W inter 1990),pp, 1~6 .Some illu s tr ative ml sc en s truels a re :(a) P erkins pres en ts MM as claim in g th atim pJIed m eaning s are" conc ea le d" (2 ); "Bordwe ll's a cc ount is absolutely bound to a view ofthe interpreting critic a prop oun der o f h id den m eanings " (3). B ut thebook is at pains to sugges t hom the firs t pages forw ard (pp. 2-3) thatth e model o f h id d en mean ih gs offers a m is tak en metap ho r fo r What th ec ritic p roouce s;me an ings a re in fe rre d, n ot d is clo se d.

(b) Perkins claim s that in seeing criticism as rhetorical, I ambound to jud ge itb ad ly b ecau se I claim th at rh eto rical p ro ofs can no tb e logic al (4 ). tie evenc la Jrns tha t I~ 'demand tha t interpretat ion fo llowf ormahu le s o f in fe re nc e~ ' (5 ). Bu t MM exp la in s th at lo gic al p roof s maynot hold sw ay in c ritic al r he to ric ; e nthymemes a re f ar mo re importa nt,an d pro perly s o (p p. 208~212).S imila rly , heu ris tic s ,a s qu ick and d ir tyreasoning processes , m ay have logical faults , but they serve theirp urp os es w e ll (p p. 137..142)..(c )MM propo se s th at c ritic s' in te rp re ta tio ns pos it "model f ilm s "built out of the .orig1nal f ilm , but P erkins claim s that this reflects a" familia r s ceptic ism" in f ilm s tud ie s" ; "noth ing sugges ts wha t the modelc ou Id ap pro xim ate to , in a w o rld w h ich m ig ht o r m ig ht n ot co ntain film sthemselves" (:3). Ye t MM pos tu la te s th at ln te rs ub je ctiv ely c ritic sread ers s hare s chem ata an d in stitution al fram ew o rk s throu gh w h ichthey g r a s p the w orld and its film s ; th e model film ap pro xim ate s to th efilm as com prehend ed under shared schem ata: the m odel film is "a

115


thinned-out revis ion the film as comprehended" (p, 14 2). W henPerkins asks that w e tes t his critical claims by reference to ourexperience of the fllm=-its story, its characterization, and the like-heis relying on just this Intersubjective understanding.(d ) MJV[ claim s th at n ov elty an d p lau sibility g ov ern critics ' effo rtsto make a publicly accessible interpretation w ithin the filrn-crlticalinstitution. P erkins calls thes e criteria "market-oriented " and ind icatesthat plausibility is "the charlatan'S measure of credulity in the audt ..ence" (4), Perkins goes on to exam ine a scene in Caught as an exam pleof "the degree to w hich the w hole is illuminated by a crittc's accountof the parts and the logic of the configuration" (4), and he suggests thatMJV [ should recognize attem pts to account for pattern and detail as partof the criteria. But MM clearly ind icates that novelty includes suchm atters as "point.(ing) out s ignificant aspects w hich previous c o m r n e n -t a t o r s have ignored or m inim ized " (30) ; this is surely w hat m ost criticsseek to do. Perkins w ould not have dw elt upon the scene in Caught ifthe aspects he perceived as salient had been sufficiently noted before.This is novelty, but not of the d im e-s tore variety. Moreover, plaus ibilityas a crlterlon includ es such m atters as accuracy of d ata and recognitionof pattern (pp. 31 -33) . Plausibility has nothing to do w ith pulling thew ool over the reader' s

(e) P erkins gives m e a drubbing for suggesting, as above, that acritic could consid er the "explicit" m eaning of T he W izard 01 Oz to bereducible to the film 's final line. He suggests that this w ould be badinterpretation (2). But the passage exemplifies comprehension, notinterpretation (MM, 8-10) , He goes on to suggest many mitigatingfactors w orking agains t this final line as an adequate summary of thefilm 's meanings . What he does , in effect, is propose some implicitm eanings w hich counterw eight the literal m eaning one m ight ascribeto this line. This is exactly w hat interpreters are supposed to do, and itis exactly w hy Ilaim that interpretation as a practice elaborates cuesin order to go beyond "literal" meanings ascribed to the film .

15 Ih ink th ere is som e ambigujty here. P erkins suggas ts thatc riti ca l example s I adduce inMM are of "delusion'!"parody," that others "poor s pe cimens " o r unrepre se nta tiv eexam ples "in the A unt SaU y (p . 3 ). He not say w hat causesthe failures these critics ' w ork, but I they do not exhibit anattention to the overt meanings Perkins claims to be objectinterpretation.

is su e, B ranig anit s eems16 I n his

with

1


having itoroecest compass, it all of. .. .. ." . .. . " .DF" . .~ .,, -- .. IT,.... s ome lin guis ts ca ll th e "men tal e ncyclo pe ..it is put to the effort of construing the events and ofaffairs the w orld posited by the film..To sort this out one w ould needfuU~blowntheory o f c inematic rep resenta tion, o f c inematic s truc tu re ,

and of the by w hich these factors are engaged by the spectator,AllMM to do is to ind icate that this exis ts and poses its ow nparticula.r of problems.A s f or thre e pa rtic ula r pro blems B ran igan(a ) Iw ould a rgue th at rdm technique s and indeed , a ll d is crim inab lefeatures of the phenomenal text, sources of cues for eithercomp rehen sio n o r inte rpreta tio n D r both .(b ) For th e purpos es D f1v I!v I1ake " ef fects " to in clude a ll pos sib leresponses w e can ascribe to the film view er, and propose to treatmeanings as one (large) class of effects . There are non-rneanlngfuleffects: the perception of color or pattern, "hard -w ired " responses toc erta in cu es (e. g ., the ph i p henomenon , or th e s tartle .res pon se evok edby sudden blasts of m usic Dr nois e.ln a th rille r). The re a re a ls o. e f fectswh ich invo lv e th e a sc rip tion o f non ..in te rp re tiv e mean ings (re fe rentia lan d exp lic it, on th e ty polo.gy und er d is cu ss io n).(c) Interpretive m eaning can aid in our comprehension of a textin several w ays, touched on in passing throughout MM and Narrationin the Fic tion Film . For exam ple, in allegory sym bolic values m aycla rif y a ctio n o r s ta tes o f a ffa irs in th e f ic tio na l wo rld . Or in " art f ilms ,"obscurities of character m otivation m ay require a consideration ofthematic implications wh ich may then lead the perceiver to attributemotive s to the chara cte r.

17 F ilm as F ilm (HarmDndswDr th , England : Penguin , 1972), pp.110.112.

18 I a ls o don 't know how to square it w ith w hat I take to be a basicview set forth in P erkins ' book Film as Film . There he claim s that thes pectator cons trues the im age as fiction: "T he particular m agic of thenarrative film to make us put an inaccurate construction on anac cu rate s eries of imag es .. .lt is w e who conve rt image s in to. a ss ertio ns .The cinem a show s us a m an hold ing a pis tol at his head, squeezing thetrigg er, a nd fa llin g t o th e f lo or. This is p rec is ely wh at h appen ed . Butwefictionalize this d ocumentary im age wh en w e claim to have s een a mancommitting s uicid e" (p, 67). If the camera only pres ents a " documen-tary im age," how can it f ilm mean ings ? And i f the S})ctatorcontributesfictionaJity t o ' what is presented on the screen, w hy does not the

117


s pec tato r co ntrib ute m ea nin gs a s w e ll? In g en eral, I fin d much o f FUmas Film comp lete ly c on gru en t w i th th e view s p os ited in MM, so I amsurprised that P erkins ad opts the line he d oes in his review .19 Dav id Cook 's commen ts to the c ontra ry rep re se nt a rn ls un der-s tand ing of m y pos ition. A few quick exam ples : /VIM s pend s s ev era lp age s (p p. 2 55 ..2 58 ) ad d ucin g s ome b ene fits o f in te rp reta tio n. C oo k

ignores these. I d o not say that evaluation (the m aking of "inform edcriticaljudgements") is out of bound s at all I do not s ay th at in te rp re tiv ecriticism is not succes sful in the clas sroom ; it is in fact em inentlyteachable (MM, 22~25). MM d enies the oppos ition betw e en "form "and "m eaning" and certainly d oes not s ay that m eaning is "incidentalor s im ply irrelevant." (A ny analys is of com prehens ion w ill Involvemea nin gs .) I wo uld a ls o as k rea de rs o f C oo k's p ers uas io n to lo ok a t myown p ractic al c ritic ism o f Dreyer , Ozu, Eisens te in , and o ther d ir ec to rs ;there they w ill find plenty of interpretations , but ones blend ed w ithc ons id era tio ns o f fo rm , s tyle , a nd h is tory. I am ha ppy th at s om eon e iss tu dyin g th es e Eas te rn Eu ro pe an f ilm s c lo se ly ,a nd I h av e no doub t th atth ey ca n b e in te rp rete d. I als o fin d it pla us ib le tha t v iew e rs fo un d th emimpl ic it o r expl ic it a ll egories o f po li ti ca l s itua tions . MM c la im s to b eable to s how how C ook's interpretations of Shad ow s and T he S hoc kare generated by the m aterials and proced ures available w ithin theinsti tu t ion 's t radi tions .ro See Malcolm Heath , Un ity in Greek Poet ic s (Oxford:ClarendonP res s, 198 9), pp. 3-8 .21 By in vokin g one s uch c ritiq ue ,And rew B ritto n's a tta ck on The

C la ss ic al Ho llywood C in ema , R obin W ood puts m e in a double bind :O n this occas ion there can be no ques tion of res pond ing ad equatelyto B ritton's long and d ens e es say. Ifl d on't res pond , how e ver, I w ill becharged w ith once m ore having evad ed this d ecis ive refutation of m ya rg umen t. I d id n ot d is co ver B ritto n's c ritiq ue u ntil n ea rly a y ea r, a fterCineAction!'s d ate of publication, too late for a tim ely res pons e. I d ointend , how ever, to ad dress som e of his objections in a forthcom ings tud y of the theory of film s tyle.Mo re g en erally , s uffice it to s ay th at th e ac cumu latin g critic ismof m y w ork has obliged m e to m ake a choice. D o I s pend a great dealo f tim e re sp ond in g immed ia tely to c ritiq ues (a p ro ce ss wh ic h, as in th ee ss ay yo u are re ad in g, In evita bly re qu ire s th e c orrec tin g of m au nd er-s tand ings and in accu racie s )? Or d o I re flec t o n th e c ritic ism , ta ke wh atI find useful in it, and pres s ahead w ith new w ork? M ore and morehave chosen the latter, T he very exis tence of the you are read ingthat I have not s hut myself off from but I do not

1


w hen Iresoonc to cTiticism s,I found journalhi.ghly u nw illing to provid e opp ortunities . Mos t ed ito rs arereluctant take up w ith rebuttals , and virtually none are w illinggrant a rejoinder equal space tim ely publication. A prom inentB ritis hjourn al pub lis he d a c ritiq ue o f my wo rk ;w hen I re ques ted abrle f~v~......to respond , the ed itor asked w hether, s ince another w asplanned for a forthcom ing issue, w ouldn't I to reply thatins tead ? When I asked to res pond to the forthcom ing critique in thesam e issue the critique itself, the ed itor never answ ered m y letter.This is s ue o f Film Crit icism is lite ra lly th e only o cc as io n in wh ic h I h av ebee n g rante d th e s chola rly c ou rte sy (u tte rly s tand ard in o th er f ie ld s ) o frep lying to peers ' commentary w ith in the s am e pag es . F aced w ith th ed em and s of tim e and the reluctance of journals to engage in d ebate,I have been obliged to as sum e that read ers und ers tand a publis hingco nv en tio n: w h en a Jo urn al p rin ts a critiq ue o f a s ch ola r's p ro ject a ndd oes n ot in vite th e s ch ola r to rep ly , th e rea der is to ta ke th at critiq ue a sunanswe re d. but not n ec es s arily unanswe rable .

22 As example s o f scho la rs te s ting , Crit ic iz ing ,and r ev is ing someof my argllments , M aureen Turtm, F la sh ba ck s in Film: Memorya nd H is to ry (New York: R outledge, 1989), pp. 5~12 , and H enryJenkins, Wha t M a de P is tac hio N u ts ? E arly Sound C gm edy and theVaudev il le Aes the ti c (New Yo rk : Co lumbia Un iv ers ity P re ss , 1992 ) ,pp.15-22.23A quick s ca n o f s ome in dex es would tum up ex ten siv e critiq uesof my w o rk in boo ks and jo urnal es say s publis hed in the US, C anad a,the UK , F rance, G erm any, and .A us traH a. More s pecifically, R ob inW ood could not have picked a w orse example of a book w hich hassupposed ly received venera tion , The C l as sic a lHo llywood C i nemabeen attacked in both the TLS (by lead ing neoconservative) andScreen (on m any occas ions; one m ight even say routinely). sam ebook w as the object of extens ive critique in a 1989 is sue of a literaryjournal, S ou th A tla ntic Q ua rte rly . (Incid entally, the ed itor o f thisco llectio n d id n ot mak e it pos sible for m e to res pond in the issue.]2 4 S ome o f th es e in terp retiv e d iv erg en ces m ig ht b e ex pla in ed b yth e p rin cip les o f rh eto ric s et f orth in MM.

1

bordwell film criticism vol27 no3 winter-spring 1993 93

Documents

film history

film theory

interpretation b

interpretation of cinema

contemporary film studiesr

history ofacademic film

n t e r p r e t

winter spring