> And most academics seem to me far worse. There are genre "laws." There
> are conventions that are being "defied." Etc., etc., etc. This is all
> utter blarney, IMHO.

If we stopped using all words that academics abuse, we'd have to talk in
monosyllables.

> Terms which essentially have no meaning
> (like "genre") are not useful. That some people THINK they are useful
> (outside of informal conversation, if there) suggests to me the degree
> to which "theory" destroys and inhibits experience.

I don't think we're talking theory here. Filmmakers know about genre
and use it. When Mann starts THE NAKED SPUR with Stewart moving in on
his prey, he knows that he doesn't have to explain why people are
settling disputes with guns, or why people are in the middle of nowhere;
when Stewart takes Ryan prisoner, he expects people to understand that
Stewart is a law officer (which eventually proves false). He could have
done all the same things outside of a set of genre expectations, but the
scene would play differently, be more of a mystery, with lots of loose
ends to tie up. Genre affords Mann the opportunity to start a story in
the thick of the conflict, for his own artistic reasons, while swimming
under the surface of accessible storytelling. You're missing out on an
analytical tool if you ignore genre.

> So can you give me a short concise definition of "realism" à la
> Auerbach, one which I can repeat the people on the street which they'll
> all understand quickly?

Auerbach's point is that the particulars of what feels realistic changes
with context. Homer made readers feel he was rendering unvarnished
reality because he did one thing differently than authors before him,
and so on.

> And is this the same as "realism" in Méliès or Ford? Is Rossellini's
> realism the same as De Sica's? Is there anyway to tell what you meant
> when you spoke of realism in regard to Hawks? Is realism in cinema when
> you have real things in front of the camera? or does it refer to the
> sense that there is someone real looking through the camera? Is a film
> about an historical event realistic if it convinces people or conveys
> some truth, despite having the facts wrong?
>
> Is there not a better way to say what you mean than to use a word whose
> meanings shift like desert sands, never to be defined ever, anywhere?

You can get a definition out of the dictionary, and it won't satisfy
you. What's the definition of art? Of religion? To pick just two
words that you are not boycotting. Abstract nouns are generally used in
a cloud of connotations.

I stated expressly that I thought realism was usable only as a relative
term, and yet you ask me if realism is the same in Hawks, Melies and
Ford. You don't seem to be paying attention to me.

> Most people who talk about "westerns" have never heard of genre. Genre
> is an academic invention. The concept didn't exist in French until
> Anglo-Americans took over the word.

Most people who die of diseases don't know the medical terms for them
either. That doesn't mean that diseases are an invention of the medical
profession.

> I have never found anyone who can define what a "western" is.
> Everyone's denotation seems to be completely different. I've spent my
> life going around pissing people off like Socrates trying to get them to
> define western and in EVERY case it ends up with them growling
> defiantly: "I can't put it into words. But I KNOW WHAT IT IS!!!" This
> is the state of academia.

No, it's the state of life. I think the fact that everyone feels they
know what a Western is should make you think twice. Maybe you're trying
to make definitions do something that they're not meant to do. They
don't determine the border conditions of a concept.

> Sure. But people who are truly original don't become so simply by
> perversion. There is a great difference between wearing a white hat
> simply because everyone else wears a black hat; and wearing a white hat
> because you like it and don't care what everyone else wears. That's my
> point. Be yourself.

So you feel that if I were right and Hawks were in fact reacting to
genre, he would be a conformist and unoriginal? Some people would
consider this a level of formal sophistication beyond most other filmmakers.

> To repeat: a sign stands for something other
> than itself, poetry stands only for itself.

I can't figure out how this branch of the conversation got started. I
gather you are taking me for some postmodernist.

> Croce admits signs into prose, which he does not regard as language but
> as a degeneration of language into a sign system. "Born as poetry,
> language was afterwards twisted to serve as a sign."
>
> I suggest to you that this is quite inspiring and exciting to
> investigate, to liberate people's minds from the shackles and chains of
> academic slavery which, like the guys in Plato's cave, they don't even
> know are binding them.

You know, I do find this interesting, and would like to know more
someday, at a calmer time. You're aware that this flies in the face of
what almost everyone believes about language? That a word is the first
example people usually give to illustrate the concept of what a sign is?
I'd feel more comfortable if you acknowledged this discrepancy.

>>Sometimes they have an aspect of the outrageous. David Huxley in BABY
>>starts out as an eccentric comic type, but he quickly develops into a
>>Hawks hero using exasperation and humor to keep himself level against
>>Susan's destabilizing effect.
>
> He doesn't succeed, does he?

Oh, he does pretty well, I'd say. Better than most people would.

>>Henri Rochard in MALE WAR BRIDE is more
>>or less exclusively concerned with self-stabilization; Hildy in HIS GIRL
>>FRIDAY knows that Walter Burns is a force of nature and narrates the
>>conflict for us.
>
> She does? Have you come up with an unexpurgated edition of the movie
> I've not heard of?

You mean you haven't seen the "voice" version? Just kidding. Hildy
gives Bruce a running commentary on what to expect from Walter in the
first part of the film, a commentary that serves as exposition for us.

> Red River is a comedy. So is Big Sky. You may wish they were not.

It won't ruin my life if they are. MONKEY BUSINESS is a comedy, and
BALL OF FIRE, and I wouldn't try to fit them into my little thesis.
It's a pattern, not a rule.

You know, when Robin Wood proposed SCARFACE as a comedy, he acknowledged
that it wouldn't sound right at first hearing. I find it odd that you
seem to assume that everyone understands that RED RIVER and THE BIG SKY
are comedies. Anyway, whenever you have time, I'd be interested in
hearing why. - Dan