The Avengers International Fan Forum Forum Index The Avengers International Fan Forum

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

5.15 - The Joker
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Avengers International Fan Forum Forum Index -> Episode Reviews - The Avengers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Rate The Joker
10
65%
 65%  [ 15 ]
9
8%
 8%  [ 2 ]
8
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
7
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
6
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
5
8%
 8%  [ 2 ]
4
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
3
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
2
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
1
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 23

Author Message
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4008
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:

I really won't comment on the "international appeal" bit, which is just far too subjective and impossible to determine to be worth argument (and kind of insulting).
Don't take it personally. A lot of the British subversive elements got toned down at the US backers' request, it's a matter of record. Also, Batman and other "kooky" US shows of the time undoubtedly had an influence in making the show more "comic booky". It's just part of making the show have more mass appeal than to the "Chelsea set" that had been going on, at a different rate, from the middle of the Cathy era.
_________________
Last watched: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Station.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I kinda do take it personally when it's implied that a preference for an episode is less valid because it was supposedly toned down for an American audience. It seems to argue that the vague authority of production circumstances supersedes the actual experience of the show and that, therefore, the opposite opinion is wrong. It's insulting to assume that American viewers just don't get the British subtlety, or that the show was therefore "dumbed down" for an American audience.

Nor do I think that The Joker was reduced from Don't Look Behind You - the mis-en-scene was simply changed, and the actress's performance was obviously different. It still has the same layers and, for my money, is enhanced by a more expansive use of the house due to the use of film vs. live television.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4008
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
Well, I kinda do take it personally when it's implied that a preference for an episode is less valid because it was supposedly toned down for an American audience. It seems to argue that the vague authority of production circumstances supersedes the actual experience of the show and that, therefore, the opposite opinion is wrong. It's insulting to assume that American viewers just don't get the British subtlety, or that the show was therefore "dumbed down" for an American audience.
Now you're inventing straw men to rail against. That wasn't what I said at all. Cultural differences don't mean one culture is smarter than another, just that things suitable for one local audience of one particular demographic aren't suitable for all audiences around the world. This also ties in with the imperatives for other internationally-dictated changes, what they thought they were doing bringing in Bryce and then bringing back Clemens, later.

You see "expansive", I see brightly overlit, less moody/scary, and more pedestrian. We each see what we want to, I guess.
_________________
Last watched: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Station.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's exactly what I mean - you're implying that due to American backers, the show was made more pedestrian and that American audiences would miss the subtlety. You cited an authority (the "well-known" demands of American backers) which reinforced your view of the episode as the "correct one", rather than actually looking at the episode as an episode. In the end it should really not have any bearing on whether or not one subjectively views the episode as successful in its project. Americanized or not, The Joker can stand or fall on its own merits. Weirdly enough, I'm an American and I love the Cathy Gale series. I know many Americans who do. I've always enjoyed those kinds of homegrown British things.

I'm just not going to respond to "production circumstances" comments any more. Discussion of an individual episode turns into competing citations of authority, rather than expressing an opinion that can be agreed or disagreed with.

In any case, I don't hate Don't Look Behind You. I just think it was limited in terms of mis-en-scene, cinematography, etc. I thought The Joker developed the same script differently and, in my view, with greater expansiveness of both character and visual aspects. Both have their merits, and whether the slightly comic book nature of The Joker appeals to you or not, Rigg's performance in itself stands out.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers


Last edited by Lhbizness on Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:20 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paulpdjh wrote:
The variety of styles over the years is one of the great things about The Avengers. People are drawn to different aspects of the show - I'll probably never get the love for season five, just as, no doubt, you're baffled by my love of season six (which, for me, it's up there with season four as the two best Avengers seasons).

My opinion on this episode is also hugely coloured by the fact that I find the character of Cathy Gale much more interesting than Emma Peel. Cathy's relationship with Steed intrigues me far more than any of his other partnerships - just when I think I've worked it out, something happens that makes me question my conclusion.


Nope, don't get the love for Season 6. But then I don't get how anyone can see Emma Peel and think she's uninteresting. That's just me.

I'm with you on the Steed/Cathy relationship, though. It's a complex and fascinating one - I find it on par with Steed and Emma. I don't think the relationships are competing, though; just different.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4008
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
That's exactly what I mean - you're implying that due to American backers, the show was made more pedestrian and that American audiences would miss the subtlety. You cited an authority (the "well-known" demands of American backers) which reinforced your view of the episode as the "correct one", rather than actually looking at the episode as an episode. In the end it should really not have any bearing on whether or not one subjectively views the episode as successful in its project. Americanized or not, The Joker can stand or fall on its own merits. Weirdly enough, I'm an American and I love the Cathy Gale series. I know many Americans who do. I've always enjoyed those kinds of homegrown British things.
* sigh *, never mind.

Fans today are not the mass audience sold to in the 1960s, btw. For a start, the Americans chose not to buy the Gales (I'm not sure about Canada). They also chose not to buy lots of other British VT drama, which Canada did buy. US buyers often underestimate their audience, like the ones who claimed "Licence Revoked" would not be understood as Americans would get the word "revoked", and why "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" had to have its name changed for US audiences. If anyone's underestimating them, it's the American studios/channels/distributors.

Lots of US buyers also claimed The Prisoner would be hated in America unless the central character won every week. "Americans don't like a loser", it was claimed. As I said, cultural differences. That's why the American studios commented on the colour episodes' scripts and suggested changes. It wasn't done for giggles!
_________________
Last watched: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Station.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm objecting to the implicit use of authority to justify your perspective and dismiss an alternative one, not whether or not those production circumstances existed (I know they did). As I said, regardless of whether The Joker was an Americanized version of Don't Look Behind You or not, it still has merits (or lack thereof) as an episode.

It also seems that you're claiming that those kinds of changes resulted in turning the series into something with less depth than previous seasons - that appealing to American audiences meant a reduction of the intellect or layers of the series. I disagree with that and I do find it an insulting conclusion to come to, from a personal perspective. But again, it does not matter what the production circumstances were. In terms of an opinion or analysis of an episode, they're trivia.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers


Last edited by Lhbizness on Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anti-clockwise
The Bird Who Wrote Too Much


Joined: 17 May 2013
Posts: 1682

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frankymole wrote:
Lhbizness wrote:
That's exactly what I mean - you're implying that due to American backers, the show was made more pedestrian and that American audiences would miss the subtlety. You cited an authority (the "well-known" demands of American backers) which reinforced your view of the episode as the "correct one", rather than actually looking at the episode as an episode. In the end it should really not have any bearing on whether or not one subjectively views the episode as successful in its project. Americanized or not, The Joker can stand or fall on its own merits. Weirdly enough, I'm an American and I love the Cathy Gale series. I know many Americans who do. I've always enjoyed those kinds of homegrown British things.
* sigh *, never mind.

Fans today are not the mass audience sold to in the 1960s, btw. For a start, the Americans chose not to buy the Gales (I'm not sure about Canada). They also chose not to buy lots of other British VT drama, which Canada did buy. US buyers often underestimate their audience, like the ones who claimed "Licence Revoked" would not be understood as Americans would get the word "revoked", and why "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" had to have its name changed for US audiences. If anyone's underestimating them, it's the American studios/channels/distributors.

Lots of US buyers also claimed The Prisoner would be hated in America unless the central character won every week. "Americans don't like a loser", it was claimed. As I said, cultural differences. That's why the American studios commented on the colour episodes' scripts and suggested changes. It wasn't done for giggles!
Franky weren't you the one that told me that Randall and Hopkirk Deceased originally had a different name here because they assumed the US audience would not know what deceased meant? or some such craziness? Laughing Laughing
_________________
"He likes his tea stirred anti-clockwise."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poor, stupid Americans.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darren
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 1695
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

anti-clockwise wrote:
Frankymole wrote:
Lhbizness wrote:
That's exactly what I mean - you're implying that due to American backers, the show was made more pedestrian and that American audiences would miss the subtlety. You cited an authority (the "well-known" demands of American backers) which reinforced your view of the episode as the "correct one", rather than actually looking at the episode as an episode. In the end it should really not have any bearing on whether or not one subjectively views the episode as successful in its project. Americanized or not, The Joker can stand or fall on its own merits. Weirdly enough, I'm an American and I love the Cathy Gale series. I know many Americans who do. I've always enjoyed those kinds of homegrown British things.
* sigh *, never mind.

Fans today are not the mass audience sold to in the 1960s, btw. For a start, the Americans chose not to buy the Gales (I'm not sure about Canada). They also chose not to buy lots of other British VT drama, which Canada did buy. US buyers often underestimate their audience, like the ones who claimed "Licence Revoked" would not be understood as Americans would get the word "revoked", and why "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" had to have its name changed for US audiences. If anyone's underestimating them, it's the American studios/channels/distributors.

Lots of US buyers also claimed The Prisoner would be hated in America unless the central character won every week. "Americans don't like a loser", it was claimed. As I said, cultural differences. That's why the American studios commented on the colour episodes' scripts and suggested changes. It wasn't done for giggles!
Franky weren't you the one that told me that Randall and Hopkirk Deceased originally had a different name here because they assumed the US audience would not know what deceased meant? or some such craziness? Laughing Laughing


Lol, wasn't it something lame like 'me and my partner, the ghost'.

Cult audiences are very perceptive but it's understandable that Joe Public needs help if a series is to be successful. If a series costs money it has to earn the finance by being successful.

An issue I have with both episodes is the design of the houses. Not in terms of look as they are both wonderful visually but in terms of layout. The DLBY house was designed for live TV and the limitations there in (the cameras circle the ... circumference of the set with only one camera on the upper floor. No more than two cameras per room as the other three are needed elsewhere to capture the ongoing action etc) but it makes no sense as a proper house, one bedroom, a nursery behind the dinning room but entered from upstairs. A very strange layout.

Then in the Joker a lot if it is upstairs but the upstairs is above a part of the house that has no downstairs.

I think The Joker is the one if the big successes of season 5A. It's one of my favourite comfort watches. Diana carries the action and silences well just as Honor did. Sidney Hayers does his best bit if directing for the show, really having fun with the camera angles. Sally Nesbitt as Ola is suitably bonkers and Emma's bemused reactions are funny until her bonkersness becomes deadly. Ronald Lacey is amusingly twisted. He really should have guested more. And Peter Jeffrey is very season 5 bad guy as apposed to Martin Goodman's more disturbing casual menace. And John Stone appears in the flesh after voicing two roles in season 4 (the fashion show in Two's a Crowd and dubbing Alan Carter in Man-Eater of Surrey Green)

10/10
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still don't think that the series lost any depth when it went to the American market! God, it's not like the American public has to be spoon-fed media any more than any other nation, and The Avengers was one of the smartest shows of the 1960s from its very inception. That carried on right to the very end.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Frankymole
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Posts: 4008
Location: Carmadoc research establishment

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
I'm objecting to the implicit use of authority to justify your perspective and dismiss an alternative one, not whether or not those production circumstances existed (I know they did). As I said, regardless of whether The Joker was an Americanized version of Don't Look Behind You or not, it still has merits (or lack thereof) as an episode.

It also seems that you're claiming that those kinds of changes resulted in turning the series into something with less depth than previous seasons - that appealing to American audiences meant a reduction of the intellect or layers of the series. I disagree with that and I do find it an insulting conclusion to come to, from a personal perspective. But again, it does not matter what the production circumstances were. In terms of an opinion or analysis of an episode, they're trivia.
Nice try at derailing things into your preferred arena, but my criticism was mainly about the worse direction and lighting, as well as the more telegraphed "acting" of the strange young man and girl.

As to your "spoon-fed" thing, you didn't address my points about American media moguls assuming Yanks were too dumb to understand the words "revoked" and "Philosopher's", which is what their very own film buyers said. If anyone thinks Americans are dumb it's the American studio bosses/distributors!
_________________
Last watched: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Station.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beg pardon? You said that The Joker was less subtle and less layered than Don't Look Behind You, and then claimed that you're supported in this assertion via a reference to production circumstances: "maybe it's because of trying to appeal to a broader, international audience, and so having less British underplaying and hints of subtlety (that might be missed or construed as woodenness)." My problem was the use of authority ("appealing to a broader, international audience" and then later "a lot of the British subversive elements got toned down at the US backers' request") to imply your criticism was objectively supported and therefore more correct than another interpretation/opinion. My problem was not with what you criticized within the episode, which I believe I did address in my initial response. We can debate the latter up one side and down the other. I was not derailing the conversation, I was responding to what had been stated. If I mistook what you were saying, I'm sorry.

As I said much earlier, I think The Joker depends more on a surreal style of filmmaking than does Don't Look Behind You. Emma is placed in an Alice Through The Looking Glass position, faced with dealing with a "sick" house populated by odd and outlandish characters who do not seem quite real. It has an ephemeral madhouse quality to it. The Gale episode is more down to earth, more noir (again, Carol Reed's films spring to mind), and the danger less discombobulating but, in another sense, more immediately realistic. So the differences between the two "strange young man" characters are in keeping with the styles in each. The noirish tone would not have worked in the technicolor world of Emma Peel, and the surrealist color saturation would not have worked in Gale's world (indeed, would have bee impossible). There's an inherent difference between the two. I personally prefer The Joker, which is entirely my own sensibility, but I don't think either contains less layers, intellectually or cinematically, than the other.

Beyond the cinematic limitations of the Gale season, I also like the scene between Steed and Emma for its very poignant but understated affection. This indicates the difference in the relationship between Steed/Emma and Steed/Cathy, for the latter accuses him of manipulating her, while Emma is purely grateful and relieved to see him.

Yes, American distributors have a tendency to underestimate their audience ("It won't play in Peoria") and always have. But that was not the issue at hand, as far as I'm concerned. It was the contemporary diminishing of the American audience in retrospect. Based on what has been said in this thread, that seemed to mean a reduction in the intellectual matter or layers of the series. Which, as I've said, I don't see in evidence within the episodes. The Avengers remained a layered and multi-facetted show throughout its run.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frankymole wrote:
Lhbizness wrote:
That's exactly what I mean - you're implying that due to American backers, the show was made more pedestrian and that American audiences would miss the subtlety. You cited an authority (the "well-known" demands of American backers) which reinforced your view of the episode as the "correct one", rather than actually looking at the episode as an episode. In the end it should really not have any bearing on whether or not one subjectively views the episode as successful in its project. Americanized or not, The Joker can stand or fall on its own merits. Weirdly enough, I'm an American and I love the Cathy Gale series. I know many Americans who do. I've always enjoyed those kinds of homegrown British things.
* sigh *, never mind.

Fans today are not the mass audience sold to in the 1960s, btw. For a start, the Americans chose not to buy the Gales (I'm not sure about Canada). They also chose not to buy lots of other British VT drama, which Canada did buy. US buyers often underestimate their audience, like the ones who claimed "Licence Revoked" would not be understood as Americans would get the word "revoked", and why "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" had to have its name changed for US audiences. If anyone's underestimating them, it's the American studios/channels/distributors.

Lots of US buyers also claimed The Prisoner would be hated in America unless the central character won every week. "Americans don't like a loser", it was claimed. As I said, cultural differences. That's why the American studios commented on the colour episodes' scripts and suggested changes. It wasn't done for giggles!


Canada bought the Gales. It was one of only a handful of countries that picked up the series that early (Australia was another early subscriber). And the US title of Randall and Hopkirk was My Partner the Ghost, often cited as a reason that it didn't do well in the States.

It is indeed a matter of record that the American networks had a lot of influence on the series in colour seasons. Whether or not that made the series more or less successful in the States is debatable, but I agree with Franky that there seemed to be a disconnect between what American (and British) networks thought would appeal to an American audience, and what actually did appeal to those audiences. Lew Grade cast brilliant American leads--Tony Curtis, Richard Bradford, Stuart Damon--in his series, reasoning that they would boost the appeal of their respective series to the American market. All three shows did well in Britain and other markets (like Canada), but failed to draw an audience in the US. Meanwhile, the British series that did do well in the US in that period had all-British leads, like The Avengers (bar Linda, but she played Tara British, so it hardly matters), The Saint, and even Danger Man (McGoohan was American by birth but raised in England and Ireland). Maybe American audiences were less keen on the series when the American networks had more influence--the unadulterated Britishness of it was one of the things that made them love it. There`s no doubt that the show was different than it would have been without ABC`s involvement, but the networks on both sides of the Pond seemed to think their audiences wanted different things than the actually did.
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
But again, it does not matter what the production circumstances were. In terms of an opinion or analysis of an episode, they're trivia.


Er, that`s one method of interpretation, but by no means the only one. Other theories regarding aesthetics and philosophy of art would argue that the circumstances surrounding production are extremely important when analyzing a work. I understand and accept completely that you subscribe to an interpretive theory that focuses on the work alone, but it`s incorrect to unilaterally state that production circumstances are always completely irrelevant, and that it`s wrong to consider them during analysis. It depends on the theory or method of interpretation.
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking back, I suppose I misunderstood what was being said. It seemed to me that the claim was that the show lost subtlety and layers due to American backers - and that's the element that bothered me. It seemed a backhanded slur on American viewers.

There are certainly things that appeal to different demographics. It's been widely proven (even if distributors still don't get it) that American audiences like homegrown British products, and have for years. The popularity of Doctor Who, Sherlock, BBC miniseries/theater productions, The Avengers etc. etc. seems to bear this out. American and British cultures have a curious affinity for each other - I honestly feel greater understanding of British culture than I do of Canadian, but that's partially because I lived in Britain for six years.

Perhaps Don't Look Behind You is less "American" than The Joker - although I would again point out that the noir tones of the early seasons of The Avengers are far closer to American film noir and police procedural than the later seasons. In any case, I don't think it's a particularly bad thing
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeless A-Peel wrote:
Lhbizness wrote:
But again, it does not matter what the production circumstances were. In terms of an opinion or analysis of an episode, they're trivia.


Er, that`s one method of interpretation, but by no means the only one. Other theories regarding aesthetics and philosophy of art would argue that the circumstances surrounding production are extremely important when analyzing a work. I understand and accept completely that you subscribe to an interpretive theory that focuses on the work alone, but it`s incorrect to unilaterally state that production circumstances are always completely irrelevant, and that it`s wrong to consider them during analysis. It depends on the theory or method of interpretation.


It was the melding of interpretative method - the claiming of authority to establish that an opinion was correct and, by extension, that the opposite opinion was therefore invalid or, at least, of lesser value. It kills discourse because it makes a claim for an authoritative view based on production circumstances. It also entails leaps of faith - because there were American backers, therefore the episode is more American and by extension less layered, etc. etc. How can one possibly establish that or support it? Argue that the episode is less layered by examining the episode itself, and we can have a debate. But argue that the episode is less layered because production circumstances say it is, and we've lost any chance for debate or disagreement. You've established that one interpretation, and only one, is correct. What more is there to be said?

But you're right - there are other modes of interpretation, and other theories with much to be said for them. This is merely the way that I choose to approach analysis. My one claim would be that production circumstances are not the final word on an episode - they are not the ultimate arbiter of correctness. Far too many times I've seen arguments that boil down to "Brian Clemens says it, therefore it must be so" (not in this thread, obviously). In any case, personal preference is still personal preference, and opinion is different from interpretation (I realize that I may have used the two interchangeably, which I should not have done).

So, yes, I think in future I'll choose to disregard production circumstances when it comes to a discussion of the merits of an individual episode. That's fine with me - it avoids the conflicting modes of interpretation.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers


Last edited by Lhbizness on Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
Timeless A-Peel wrote:
Lhbizness wrote:
But again, it does not matter what the production circumstances were. In terms of an opinion or analysis of an episode, they're trivia.


Er, that`s one method of interpretation, but by no means the only one. Other theories regarding aesthetics and philosophy of art would argue that the circumstances surrounding production are extremely important when analyzing a work. I understand and accept completely that you subscribe to an interpretive theory that focuses on the work alone, but it`s incorrect to unilaterally state that production circumstances are always completely irrelevant, and that it`s wrong to consider them during analysis. It depends on the theory or method of interpretation.


It was the melding of interpretative method - the claiming of authority to establish that an opinion was correct and, by extension, that the opposite opinion was therefore lesser. It kills discourse because it makes a claim for an authoritative view based on production circumstances. It also entails leaps of faith - because there were American backers, therefore the episode is more American and by extension less layered, etc. etc. How can one possibly establish that or support it? Argue that the episode is less layered by examining the episode itself, and we can have a debate. But argue that the episode is less layered because production circumstances say it is, and we've lost any chance for debate or disagreement. You've established that one interpretation, and only one, is correct.


Yes, I understand all of that. My issue is with the statement, ďit does not matter what the production circumstances were. In terms of an opinion or analysis of an episode, they're trivia.Ē Itís very unilateral and seems to advocate only one method of interpretation by disallowing the use of the workís production as a means by which to interpret the work, i.e., if itís not onscreen, you canít use it. There are many theories of interpretation that argue the exact opposite of that and are equally valid methods. Preferring one method over another is fine. Insinuating that there is only one method of interpretation, and that means of production can never play a part in interpretation, is incorrect.
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lhbizness
How to Succeed... at Posting!


Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 975

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which is, absolutely, my opinion on interpretation. It gets far too thorny an issue, because you begin having to delve into intentionality, the mode of production, the psychologies of those involved, what is known (or assumed) about distribution, marketing, etc. You begin setting out to solve the "mystery of the text" in an authoritative manner, which is why I don't agree with or subscribe to that kind of interpretation and take issue with it.

But again, you're right. I should not have made such a blanket statement, even if that is my approach.

I guess I should have just said that I don't care what the production circumstances are and tried to guide the debate back to the episode, rather than taking issue with the interpretative method. My bad.
_________________
"It's a conflict of science and humanity! Equations, isotherms...I have a dynamic too."

Avengers Episode Reviews: The Undertakers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Timeless A-Peel
A Touch of Brimstone


Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 4866
Location: New Scotland, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lhbizness wrote:
Which is, absolutely, my opinion on interpretation. It gets far too thorny an issue, because you begin having to delve into intentionality, the mode of production, the psychologies of those involved, what is known (or assumed) about distribution, marketing, etc. You begin setting out to solve the "mystery of the text" in an authoritative manner, which is why I don't agree with or subscribe to that kind of interpretation and take issue with it.

But again, you're right. I should not have made such a blanket statement, even if that is my approach.

I guess I should have just said that I don't care what the production circumstances are and tried to guide the debate back to the episode, rather than taking issue with the interpretative method. My bad.


Yes, absolutely. No quarrel with any of that. We can accept or ignore the show`s backstory at will, and come up with a valid interpretation in either case. Smile
_________________
Last Watched: Who Was That Man I Saw You With?



Anew: A TNA Site. Updated 4/30/14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Avengers International Fan Forum Forum Index -> Episode Reviews - The Avengers All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com

Free Web Hosting | File Hosting | Photo Gallery | Matrimonial


Powered by PhpBB.BizHat.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com