M&D truthtelling, history & I.F. Stone(WAS Publisher's Weekly (fwd)

[davemarc]

I thought I would stay out of this discussion, but I'm appalled at
Sojourner's attitude about cinema and television, etc.  There are things
that Sojourner writes about these media that are the same things people
have said about literature.  His condemnation of certain
media--broadcasting, celluloid--completely ignores the fact that, like
books, they are means for people to communicate with each other.  The
message is important.  

Sojourner seems to have lots of opinions about the Marx Brothers, but
pleads (parades?) ignorance of their work.  Would he perhaps be more
inclined to experience them if he knew that 

1)  They were veterans of live performances years before they performed in
movies that were often based on plays written by the likes of George S.
Kaufman?

2)  They were celebrated by the Surrealists?

3)  Harpo and Groucho were significant literary figures and authors--Harpo
being part of the Algonquin Round Table and Groucho also being a central
figure in the creative community, both being the authors of highly praised
autobiographies and letters?

4)  Groucho's television work ("You Bet Your Life") is still hilariously
funny--and devoid of all that so-called oppressive television
technique--after more than three decades?

Imagine if cinema--sound cinema!--existed before 1895.  I'd love to be able
to see and hear performances by the legendary (and forgotten) singers,
dancers, and actors of days gone by.

Being able to read or watch a movie or television show has nothing to do
with morality.  It has everything to do with curiosity, freedom, and
intellectual development.  Morality has more to do with action than with
being an audience member.

Since Sojourner is apparently gifted with sight, I encourage him to make
use of it and give the Marx Brothers, Citizen Kane, and Fritz Lang a try. 
Naturally it'd be better if he could see those movies on a big screen, as
they were intended to be seen.  But if he's not too afraid to make use of
the evil television set and video technology to see Duck Soup, Steelhead's
favorite flick, and M, I think he'll be very surprised by what he sees.  It
might even help him appreciate literature--the works of Pynchon
included--more.  Stranger things have happened.

I respect lots of Sojourner's opinions, but here I'm obviously
flabbergasted.  He's enthusastic about romance novels and magazines, but
not interested in movies and television?  I have some news for him: 
Written languages are motion pictures too.  The reader scans images
provided by writers and gather meanings from them.  It's pretty obvious
when it comes to certain forms like hieroglyphics, but just because written
English is phonetic doesn't mean it's not the same thing. Audiences
watching motion pictures can still read the images and sounds for meaning. 


Sojourner might want to consider the early films by the Lumiere brothers. 
Many were literally motion pictures--moving photographs.  Would he say a
photo of traffic is somehow superior to a motion picture of traffic?  Would
he say that a photo of a magic trick is somehow superior to a motion
picture of one?

I have a wonderful illustrated Spanish language edition of Don Quixote,
which is one of my favorite books.  Does Sojourner have something against
books with pictures--since the illustrations "show" and "tell" the reader
what's going on in pictorial form?  Then why would he like magazines like
LIFE--very important to Pynchon?  Or does he only like those that aren't
illustrated?  What of comic books--also very important to Pynchon?

Sheesh.  File under Luddite--Media Branch.

davemarc