"I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there..." --Marge Gunderson, Fargo.
i just watched Fargo for the twentieth time, so i hope that i'll be forgiven for having Marge Gunderson on the brain. Anyway, if i've learned anything from watching Coen Brothers' films, it's that syntax matters.
DeCordova does not focus primarily on the children's matinee movements. Instead, DeCordova's thesis is, more generally, that film historians need to account for audience research practices in the 1910s and 1920s. (Perhaps i'm oversimplifying here?) For DeCordova, "an investigation of the practices through which researchers attempted to understand the child audience may tell us something about audience research today and the various power relations that subtend it." (230) DeCordova's point of emphasis is the construction of the child audience by privileged actors. (This recalls Gerard Genette's relation of "narrator" to "narrative": after all, someone has to tell the story.) DeCordova contends that (relatively) recent critical ethnographic work "has tended to shift the presumed source of meaning away from the text to the spectator and the social matrices within which she or he is inscribed." (230-31) Leila focuses only on DeCordova's exploration of exhibition trends and ignores the ethnographic aspect. That's fine, but then she claims he needs to take a broader approach. i don't think that's giving DeCordova enough credit.**
The DeCordova quote provided in the blog post is not presented in its entirety. As a result, a subtle syntactical slippage occurs, misrepresenting DeCordova's meaning. DeCordova does not focus on "the" set of initiatives regulating child audiences; rather, his focus is on "a" set of such initiatives. DeCordova's view is not "myopic." DeCordova, in the sentence immediately preceding the truncated sentence offered in the blog post, warns the reader that "[a]n account of the full range of these forms and practices is well beyond the scope of this study." DeCordova does not explore the myriad other factors influencing the construction of the child audience because to do so would be beyond the scope of his article. Yet, in spite of these self-imposed limitations, DeCordova does acknowledge the "broader social and political imperatives" underlying the construction of the child audience. (232) DeCordova, while maintaining his focus on those who wrote on the cinema in the 1910s and 1 920s, traces the roots of the concern over children and the movies to broader familial structuring in the nineteenth century. (233) DeCordova acknowledges the "bigger issue[s]" surrounding the matinee movements without deviating from his (more focused) thesis. In so doing, DeCordova avoids committing "the interminable fallacy": he does not make a short story longer than it needs to be. (Fischer 149)
Ultimately, Leila commits the same "fallacy" that she accuses DeCordova of committing: she concludes her response to DeCordova's article by cautiously suggesting that "if" she were to analyze the matinee movement, she "would" focus on the evolution of child labor laws in this country. She entices us with the promise that such analysis "would" reveal parallels between child labor laws and the child audience for cinema. Unfortunately, the hoped-for analysis is not provided -- presumably because we blog posters are allotted only so much space for our blog posts. Leila, in much the same manner as DeCordova, does not exceed the scope of her argument. Like Marge Gunderson investigating the missing vehicle on Jerry Lundegaard's lot, both Leila and DeCordova are just doing the jobs they each set out to do.
--ed
*i'm not terribly original, so i've chosen to respond to someone else's post. i hope this is okay.
**Leila commences her blog post with a citation to DeCordova's article. However, it should be noted that DeCordova's title begins with "Ethnography," not "Ethnographic." This minor hiccup indicates more substantial misplaced attention: Leila gives ethnography short shrift, limiting her focus to DeCordova's exploration of exhibition practices in the 1920s. DeCordova privileges the ethnographic aspect of audience research by making "Ethnography" the first word encountered by the reader: his article's title is "Ethnography and Exhibition," not "Exhibition and Ethnography."
2 comments:
I'm going to leave this comment anonymous as I will not respond to any defense of the poster's behavior. Let me be clear: I DO NOT WISH TO ARGUE.
Your research and effort are greatly appreciated, Ed. However, I feel your blog post sets a dangerous tone for future discussion in this class and in the entire program.
I don't think the point of this exercise is to put other students' work under a microscope. As we are all a part of a learning institution, we are here to learn new things and to create new ideas. We are not here to dissect the students opinions or to stifle ideas. I feel your work is not opening a door for lively discussion but for immature attacks. Having taught before, I would not tolerate such actions from any of my students. We should know better by now.
I find your analysis of a typo in your endnote the most bothersome. It adds nothing to your argument. It's simply a juvenile attempt to discredit her work. If you want to discredit someone, do it through original ideas and analysis of arguments. Don't point out an easily overlooked error when you can clearly determine the meaning. Drawing conclusions about their analytical abilities based on such an error should be avoided. If you copy and paste the title she listed into Google, it'll fix the error (and in .6 seconds!). Mystery solved. No one was/is confused. There's no reason to point out insignificant errors like that.
I see some typos in your post as well. Does that discredit your work? Does that imply that you have "more substantial misplaced attention?" The fact that you attempt to discredit her work while being unable to doubtlessly restate DeCordova's meaning is completely ridiculous. I'm referring to this quote, by the way: "Perhaps i'm [sic] oversimplifying here?" How can you begin to critique her ideas when you cannot clearly express them yourself?
There is also no reason to imply that Leila's argument is weakened due to a lack of analysis that extends beyond the scope of the assignment. You know it's not within the realm of this assignment, so the implication that it should have been there is unfair. While I can see the point you were attempting to make, I don't find it impressive to make it at the detriment of another student. It's fine to defend DeCordova, but do it by analyzing DeCordova's argument. That would say more about your research and your character. I highly doubt David Bordwell would garner any praise for browbeating grad students. I believe we can be civil even within the most competitive of environments.
While I understand this comment can be misconstrued as sinking to the same level that I speak against, I assure you that I am simply trying to encourage students not to berate the arguments of others. And I do think an apology is needed to Leila.
I formally apologize if anyone finds this to be out of line or overly harsh.
"These dances and this kind of music can be destructive and, uh, Ren, I'm afraid you're going to find most of the people in our community are gonna agree with me on this." --Reverend Shaw Moore (speaking to Ren McCormack), Footloose
i* think Anonymous makes several fair points. i also think that although this is a subject somewhat removed from the original topic, it is just as important. The manner in which we react to each other's thoughts about film is always a subject worth discussing.
i just want to make two quick points:
(1) We are all practicing to be academics, and it is essential that we are able to withstand fair criticism, even if it comes from an unexpected direction or in an unexpected manner. Indulging the temptation to label any such criticism as "personal" doesn't encourage discussion; it stifles it. People become too worried about where they are stepping to focus clearly on what they are saying. i chose to respond to Leila's blog post precisely because i found her argument interesting and worthwhile. i also read Leila's argument as an incitement to further discussion. Isn't that the nature of academia: the batting back-and-forth of ideas, providing arguments and counter-arguments?
(2) Let's talk about the "typo." Please allow me to correct the misperception that my point was anything other than weak – but direct – support for my larger response, namely that i felt Leila didn't give that part of DeCordova's essay enough credit. On the scale of criticism, this is .22 caliber. Giving the impression that i was trying to hound someone is, in my view, a willful mischaracterization.
When participating in a discussion, there is no exempting oneself from subsequent discussion. Leila has every right to critique DeCordova's argument. And we all have an interest in examining those claims and testing them in different ways. i don't believe that responding to (and, yes, even criticizing) the arguments of colleagues ought to be stifled by anyone. i don't believe that it ought to be "[outside] the realm of this assignment" to engage in dialogue with one another about the readings. And, like Ren McCormack, i don't believe that dancing ought to outlawed, either.
ed
*[sic]
Post a Comment