Clayton George Wickham - final thesis

viii
the assumption that the text does not work on its own terms, and implies that
meaning is the ultimate goal of art. He claims that the interpretive critic assumes the
role of code breaker whose reading is “somehow deeper or more valid than the
work’s delivered meaning.” (T Berliner 2012, pers. comm. 5 Jan) Instead, Berliner
proposed that the texts be studied to understand how they stimulate the mind, so we
can answer the question: “Why do people like the works of art they like?” (T
Berliner 2012, pers. comm. 5 Jan).
Some students misunderstood, others vehemently opposed this method, and I
found his approach undoubtedly challenging. Eventually, I found the challenge
enjoyable as well as rewarding, and I now prefer this method of analysis. It also
became a useful tool for understanding and evaluating my responses to film, helping
me locate sources of pleasure in texts that were generally considered devoid of value
by fellow film students.
One such example I discovered earlier, in the winter of 1997. I attended a
late night screening of Friday the 13 th (1980; dir. Cunningham) at James Madison
University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Having not seen it before, but aware of the
cultural significance, I expected a generic slasher film with extensive violence and
nudity, which would be entertaining and ultimately forgettable. Having watched it
seventeen years after its initial release, I did find it generic; it did have violence and
nudity, and was entertaining. However, I didn’t find it forgettable. I later found
myself thinking over it, recalling images, sounds, and narrative moments that were
vivid in my mind, and I considered the film ultimately haunting and atmospheric.
After watching it several more times, I began watching the sequels, preparing myself
for disappointment each time, as was my experience with most sequels up to/at that
point. Surprisingly, I was thoroughly entertained by each one, and viewed them