The following is an excerpt from one of my favorite books on film criticism/theory,
The Material Ghost: Film and its Medium by Gilberto Pérez. The author sort of follows in the iconoclastic tradition of another well known movie critic, Guillermo Caín (Carbrera Infante's pseudonym), while moving beyond that tradition and forging some ideas of his own. Pérez like Caín, writes clearly and explains his points well. However, unlike Caín, Pérez is a theorist of sorts, and, therefore, delves deeper into film analysis than Caín ever did. Enjoy this
pedazo:
By the way, The Material Ghost has an awesome looking book cover and the greenish/whitish parts (the title, the author's name and the skeleton) GLOW IN THE DARK!
In case you were wondering what footnote 33-34 say, not 33 is a credit to someone for pointing that fact out to Pérez. Note 34 is below.
4 comments:
Oh, SNAP! Lacan's face just called. Soccer practice is over, and he needs to pick it up!
Yes, Pérez's critique is pretty harsh. But it's just as much of an indictment of Lacan's prose and influences as it is of the academics that incorrectly or ignorantly overuse one or two of his ideas. Film theory class last quarter was a real battle for me, due to some of the very reason's that Pérez cites here. I once heard a professor from U Texas caution against literary critics becoming bad psychoanalysts or bad historians. I am guilty of both, so reading Pérez was a welcome smack in the face.
Is there such a thing as a "good" psychoanalyst, though?
I especially liked the footnote on Peirce. So, for the million-dollar question: if you were stuck on a deserted island and could have only one companion, Lacan or Peirce, who would it be?
I'm avoiding being a bad psychoanalyst or a bad historian, and heading straight for bad scientist.
Post a Comment