8/14/2019 Review: [Untitled] Author(s): Robert Stam Reviewed Work(s): Realism and The

1/4

Review: [untitled]Author(s): Robert StamReviewed work(s):

Realism and the Cinema by Christopher WilliamsSource: Film Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 41-43Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1212101Accessed: 15/12/2009 11:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to FilmQuarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1212101?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1212101?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/14/2019 Review: [Untitled] Author(s): Robert Stam Reviewed Work(s): Realism and The

2/4

Straub/Huillet's films as attempts to bring tothe film spectator the same alienation effectsought by Brecht for the theater spectator.

Needless to say, such an uncompromisingposition by these film-makers has resulted inbroad attacks from a number of directions.

The classic distribution-exhibition structuredoes not recognize the validity of these filmsand often levels charges of incompetence atits creators (see Godard's statements on LesCarabiniers in Godard on Godard). The purelyformalist avant-garde whose interests lie out-side political concerns denounces the radicalcontent and form of these films while continu-ing to support a myth of uncommitted artists.Political film-makers whose work stays at thelevel of content,

rejectingthe need for revolu-

tionary form, dismiss them as individualisticexperiments and raise charges of subjectivism,the same charges which were levelled at Eisen-stein and which led to his forced abandonmentof experimentation. But the line is unflagging.Walsh admits that Straub/Huillet's films,Schoenberg's music and Brecht's theater can-not be seen as "populist." In essence, the film-maker must not concede to dominant formsimply because this form will allegedly reachmore people.

It must also be said that the essays in thisvolume are readings of works which consciouslysee themselves within this Brechtian theoreticalposition. While many film reviews attempt to"save" certain films by invoking Brechtiantheories, many of these attempts are but pan-dering to the concepts and in fact act as a co-optation of Brecht's very theories. Thus a needemerges for a constant shifting of actualizationof these

theories in relationship to dominantfilm-making.The group of essays makes for pleasant read-

ing. Walsh's style is accessible and his discus-sion of Brecht never too ephemeral. The onlysour note, the price tag. People have mentionedthe unusually high prices of the BFI series,which might be attributed to its distributor inthe US. Whatever the reason, the $14.50 pricetag seems a little steep.

-FABRICE ZIOLKOWSKI

Straub/Huillet's films as attempts to bring tothe film spectator the same alienation effectsought by Brecht for the theater spectator.

Needless to say, such an uncompromisingposition by these film-makers has resulted inbroad attacks from a number of directions.

The classic distribution-exhibition structuredoes not recognize the validity of these filmsand often levels charges of incompetence atits creators (see Godard's statements on LesCarabiniers in Godard on Godard). The purelyformalist avant-garde whose interests lie out-side political concerns denounces the radicalcontent and form of these films while continu-ing to support a myth of uncommitted artists.Political film-makers whose work stays at thelevel of content,

rejectingthe need for revolu-

tionary form, dismiss them as individualisticexperiments and raise charges of subjectivism,the same charges which were levelled at Eisen-stein and which led to his forced abandonmentof experimentation. But the line is unflagging.Walsh admits that Straub/Huillet's films,Schoenberg's music and Brecht's theater can-not be seen as "populist." In essence, the film-maker must not concede to dominant formsimply because this form will allegedly reachmore people.

It must also be said that the essays in thisvolume are readings of works which consciouslysee themselves within this Brechtian theoreticalposition. While many film reviews attempt to"save" certain films by invoking Brechtiantheories, many of these attempts are but pan-dering to the concepts and in fact act as a co-optation of Brecht's very theories. Thus a needemerges for a constant shifting of actualizationof these

theories in relationship to dominantfilm-making.The group of essays makes for pleasant read-

ing. Walsh's style is accessible and his discus-sion of Brecht never too ephemeral. The onlysour note, the price tag. People have mentionedthe unusually high prices of the BFI series,which might be attributed to its distributor inthe US. Whatever the reason, the $14.50 pricetag seems a little steep.

-FABRICE ZIOLKOWSKI

REALISM NDTHECINEMA

Edited by Christopher Williams. London:Routledge nd Kegan Paul, 1980.

Christopher Williams's critical anthology pre-sents the writings of more than a score of criticsand filmmakers-from Sergei Eisenstein toJean-Louis Comolli-who have addressedthemselves to the vexed question of cinematicrealism. Although the book performs a realservice by compiling a number of excellentarticles, including many that had not beenreadily accessible to Anglo-American readers,and although Williams's commentary is notunintelligent, it is marred by serious problemsof format and conception. The whirlwind tour

of this challenging subject leaves the readerbewildered, feeling rather like a stranger lostin the suburbs of a sprawling megalopolis anddesperately searching for a center.

The book's basic organizational map, firstof all, is somewhat baffling. The title of thefirst chapter-"Realist Positions"-leads usto expect a contrasting "Anti-Realist Posi-tions," but instead we are given "Discussionsof Flaherty." The titles of the last two chapters-"Forms and Ideologies" and "Aestheticsand Technology"-seem hopelessly vague. Why,we wonder, are "Aesthetics and Technology"grouped together, and why at the end ratherthan the beginning of the book? The dizzyingeffect of this erratic itinerary is compoundedby a constant shuttling back and forth intime-from a sixties Cinethique text to twen-ties Epstein, from thirties Grierson o the Soviettwenties-which induces a kind of temporaljetlag in the reader. Williams offers us neither

straightforward chronology nor an intelligentmapping out of problematic terms such as:"realism," "naturalism," "illusionism," "crit-ical realism," "socialist realism." Instead, thereader, more confused at the end than at thebeginning, loses all sense of the intellectualtopography.

At times Realism and the Cinema seems lessan anthology than an essay in which the quotedpassages are unusually lengthy. Since the type-face used for the quoted authors is irritatinglysimilar to that used for Williams's commen-tary, we often lose track of exactly who isspeaking. The selections themselves seem some-what arbitrary, and their length often bearslittle proportion to their relevance. Bazin's"William Wyler, or the Jansenist of Mise-en-

41

REALISM NDTHECINEMA

Edited by Christopher Williams. London:Routledge nd Kegan Paul, 1980.

Christopher Williams's critical anthology pre-sents the writings of more than a score of criticsand filmmakers-from Sergei Eisenstein toJean-Louis Comolli-who have addressedthemselves to the vexed question of cinematicrealism. Although the book performs a realservice by compiling a number of excellentarticles, including many that had not beenreadily accessible to Anglo-American readers,and although Williams's commentary is notunintelligent, it is marred by serious problemsof format and conception. The whirlwind tour

of this challenging subject leaves the readerbewildered, feeling rather like a stranger lostin the suburbs of a sprawling megalopolis anddesperately searching for a center.

The book's basic organizational map, firstof all, is somewhat baffling. The title of thefirst chapter-"Realist Positions"-leads usto expect a contrasting "Anti-Realist Posi-tions," but instead we are given "Discussionsof Flaherty." The titles of the last two chapters-"Forms and Ideologies" and "Aestheticsand Technology"-seem hopelessly vague. Why,we wonder, are "Aesthetics and Technology"grouped together, and why at the end ratherthan the beginning of the book? The dizzyingeffect of this erratic itinerary is compoundedby a constant shuttling back and forth intime-from a sixties Cinethique text to twen-ties Epstein, from thirties Grierson o the Soviettwenties-which induces a kind of temporaljetlag in the reader. Williams offers us neither

straightforward chronology nor an intelligentmapping out of problematic terms such as:"realism," "naturalism," "illusionism," "crit-ical realism," "socialist realism." Instead, thereader, more confused at the end than at thebeginning, loses all sense of the intellectualtopography.

At times Realism and the Cinema seems lessan anthology than an essay in which the quotedpassages are unusually lengthy. Since the type-face used for the quoted authors is irritatinglysimilar to that used for Williams's commen-tary, we often lose track of exactly who isspeaking. The selections themselves seem some-what arbitrary, and their length often bearslittle proportion to their relevance. Bazin's"William Wyler, or the Jansenist of Mise-en-

41

8/14/2019 Review: [Untitled] Author(s): Robert Stam Reviewed Work(s): Realism and The

3/4

Scene" is quoted at great length, but not "On-tology of the Photographic Image" or "TheEvolution of Film Language."

There are other lacunae. Since the discus-sion of realism antedates the cinema, the bookmight usefully have included or at least cited

such classic literary discussions of realism asAuerbach on "the representation of reality,"Lukacs on "typicality," Jakobson on "progres-sive realism" and Barthes on the "reality-effect."The total absence of women writers, mean-while, contributes to an atmosphere of Hawks-ian male camaraderie, as if both realism andfilm theory were exclusively masculine do-mains. Without proposing either tokenism orquotas, we can speculate that Suzanne Langeron film and

dream,Constance

Penleyon

"TheAvant-Garde and its Imaginary," and ClaireJohnston on "Womens' Cinema as CounterCinema" would have been as relevant as mostof the articles included. The absence of thework of Christian Metz, finally, both from hisearlier "Bazinian" period of "On the Impres-sion of Reality" and from the later Languageand Cinema, seriously mars the anthology.The later work, especially, could take the dis-cussion to a higher plane since it argues thatall films-realist, anti-realist, fiction, docu-mentary-are cinematically, esthetically, andculturally coded artifacts rather than simulacraof the real world.

The books's discussion of Brecht is similarlymyopic. Williams laments that "Brecht did nothave enough interest in film to think his ideasthrough very far." Brecht did think throughhis ideas on the theater, however, and thoseideas inspired film-makers as diverse as Nagisa

Oshima, Jean-Luc Godard, and GlauberRocha, not to mention animated discussionin the pages of innumerable film journals.Williams accuses Brecht of taking "the tradi-tional Marxist view that [cinema] is a drug, apermanent seduction of the working class awayfrom their true interests"-a statement whichsimultaneously caricatures both Brecht andMarxism. In fact, Brecht had a lifelong enthus-iasm for the cinema. He used film fragmentswithin his theatrical presentations, and drewinspiration from Eisenstein and Chaplin in theformulation of his notions of epic theater. Hescripted Kuhle Wampe and certainly did notregard the cinema as intrinsically narcotic,although he might have regarded a certaincinema as functioning in that way. And the42

idea that Marxism is traditionally hostile to thecinema would come as a surprise to Lenin andEisenstein, not to mention Pudovkin, BelaBalazs, and Fidel Castro.

Despite these flaws, Realism and the Cinemais not without value. Many selections-ColinMacCabe on the classic realist text, PatrickOgle on the technological supports of realism,Comolli on direct cinema-are brilliant andinformative. And Williams himself offers validinsights along the way, even if that way itselfperpetually threatens to detour into irrele-vance. He makes a useful distinction betweenthe naive realism of Grierson and Zavattini,who come close to denying conventions or pre-tending they do not exist, and the more sophis-

ticated realists like Eisenstein, Vertov andBazin who are aware of cinematic mediation.Both share a commitment to truth: "The mostcommitted realists call on some idea of aesthe-tics; the anti-realists are anti-realist becausethey believe it is more truthful, in one senseor another, to be so."

Williams also rejects the simplistic equation,so fashionable in the late sixties, of "anti-illusionist" and "politically progressive," anequation that led to the bizarre leftist blessingof insufferable deconstructed bores like Medi-terranehe on the one hand and the reflexivepranks of Jerry Lewis on the other. He equallydiscards the obverse notion, argued by RolandBarthes and others, that realism, no matterhow progressive its intentions, is irremediablybourgeois. (The case of the arch-mimeticistBalzac, from whom Marx learned more thanfrom "all the historians, economists and statis-ticians put together," shows that realism is not

necessarily reactionary, while reflexive self-mocking TV commercials demonstrate thatanti-illusionism per se is not intrinsically pro-gressive.) The question of realism and anti-realism, Williams points out, is not one of"strictly opposed polarities, glaring at eachother across unfathomable aesthetic and polit-ical divides" but rather one of interpenetratingand mutually nourishing opposites. He alsoscores a certain pseudo-Brechtianism thatequates distanciation with a lack of

pleasure:"The pleasures that narrative provides need tobe recognized, and indeed shifted toward thecentre of discussion rather than deplored orcondescended to."

Realism and the Cinema as a whole, unfor-tunately, does not maintain the level of its

8/14/2019 Review: [Untitled] Author(s): Robert Stam Reviewed Work(s): Realism and The

4/4

best insights. The main problem derives fromWilliams's somewhat passive methodology:"The method of this book is to take a numberof, I hope, fairly representative statements byfilmmakers, critics and theoreticians, and toplace them side by side so as to bring out their

similarities and contradictions." This minimalmontage of theories betrays the same mimeticfallacy criticized elsewhere in the book-thenaive neorealist or cinema verite faith that oneneed only register phenomena in their diversityfor the truth to emerge. This intellectual passivityis echoed by a weary and listless tone, as if theauthor himself were tired of pondering theissues raised. Our guide through the quag-mires of cinematic realism, we come to suspect,is neither

completelyin control of his

subjectnor terribly excited about his chosen territory.-ROBERT STAM

FILMANDDREAMSAnApproach o Bergman

Edited by VladaPetric. South Salem, NY: Redgrave, 981.

Of all modern film-makers, Bergman is themost attuned to the dreamlife and related psy-chological phenomena, so it's not hard to ima-gine a whole book devoted to the dream aspectsof his work. But this collection of essays, deriv-ign from a 1978 conference at Harvard, actuallyhas a number of different foci. In its pages arelatively hard-line Freudian interpretation ofthe dreams in Wild Strawberries (by JacobZelinger) can sit beside Allan Hobson's formu-lation, based on neurophysiological studies,which utterly denies all Freudian dream mech-

anisms in Bergman or in real dreams either.There are also several articles, such as MarshaKinder's complex piece, tracing parallels be-tween the different phases of dreaming sleepand film structures: in this case, the openingsequence of Persona. Other articles exploredreamlike aspects of one or another Bergmanfilm. Also included are an account of an exper-iment at the conference by Dusan Makavejev,who spliced end to end a series of nonverbalsequences from Bergman films, and an acuteexplication of Makavejev's much malignedSweet Movie by Stanley Cavell. There are evena couple of articles on insanity and psycho-pathology in Bergman.

This multi-ring intellectual circus is presidedover by Vlada Petric through his opening

best insights. The main problem derives fromWilliams's somewhat passive methodology:"The method of this book is to take a numberof, I hope, fairly representative statements byfilmmakers, critics and theoreticians, and toplace them side by side so as to bring out their

similarities and contradictions." This minimalmontage of theories betrays the same mimeticfallacy criticized elsewhere in the book-thenaive neorealist or cinema verite faith that oneneed only register phenomena in their diversityfor the truth to emerge. This intellectual passivityis echoed by a weary and listless tone, as if theauthor himself were tired of pondering theissues raised. Our guide through the quag-mires of cinematic realism, we come to suspect,is neither

completelyin control of his

subjectnor terribly excited about his chosen territory.-ROBERT STAM

FILMANDDREAMSAnApproach o Bergman

Edited by VladaPetric. South Salem, NY: Redgrave, 981.

Of all modern film-makers, Bergman is themost attuned to the dreamlife and related psy-chological phenomena, so it's not hard to ima-gine a whole book devoted to the dream aspectsof his work. But this collection of essays, deriv-ign from a 1978 conference at Harvard, actuallyhas a number of different foci. In its pages arelatively hard-line Freudian interpretation ofthe dreams in Wild Strawberries (by JacobZelinger) can sit beside Allan Hobson's formu-lation, based on neurophysiological studies,which utterly denies all Freudian dream mech-

anisms in Bergman or in real dreams either.There are also several articles, such as MarshaKinder's complex piece, tracing parallels be-tween the different phases of dreaming sleepand film structures: in this case, the openingsequence of Persona. Other articles exploredreamlike aspects of one or another Bergmanfilm. Also included are an account of an exper-iment at the conference by Dusan Makavejev,who spliced end to end a series of nonverbalsequences from Bergman films, and an acuteexplication of Makavejev's much malignedSweet Movie by Stanley Cavell. There are evena couple of articles on insanity and psycho-pathology in Bergman.

This multi-ring intellectual circus is presidedover by Vlada Petric through his opening

best insights. The main problem derives fromWilliams's somewhat passive methodology:"The method of this book is to take a numberof, I hope, fairly representative statements byfilmmakers, critics and theoreticians, and toplace them side by side so as to bring out their

similarities and contradictions." This minimalmontage of theories betrays the same mimeticfallacy criticized elsewhere in the book-thenaive neorealist or cinema verite faith that oneneed only register phenomena in their diversityfor the truth to emerge. This intellectual passivityis echoed by a weary and listless tone, as if theauthor himself were tired of pondering theissues raised. Our guide through the quag-mires of cinematic realism, we come to suspect,is neither

completelyin control of his

subjectnor terribly excited about his chosen territory.-ROBERT STAM

FILMANDDREAMSAnApproach o Bergman

Edited by VladaPetric. South Salem, NY: Redgrave, 981.

Of all modern film-makers, Bergman is themost attuned to the dreamlife and related psy-chological phenomena, so it's not hard to ima-gine a whole book devoted to the dream aspectsof his work. But this collection of essays, deriv-ign from a 1978 conference at Harvard, actuallyhas a number of different foci. In its pages arelatively hard-line Freudian interpretation ofthe dreams in Wild Strawberries (by JacobZelinger) can sit beside Allan Hobson's formu-lation, based on neurophysiological studies,which utterly denies all Freudian dream mech-

anisms in Bergman or in real dreams either.There are also several articles, such as MarshaKinder's complex piece, tracing parallels be-tween the different phases of dreaming sleepand film structures: in this case, the openingsequence of Persona. Other articles exploredreamlike aspects of one or another Bergmanfilm. Also included are an account of an exper-iment at the conference by Dusan Makavejev,who spliced end to end a series of nonverbalsequences from Bergman films, and an acuteexplication of Makavejev's much malignedSweet Movie by Stanley Cavell. There are evena couple of articles on insanity and psycho-pathology in Bergman.

This multi-ring intellectual circus is presidedover by Vlada Petric through his opening

lengthy essay, in which he surveys the entirehistorical trajectory of thinking about filmsand dreams, and describes how many differentfilm-makers and schools have used dream-likefilm styles. It is clear, from the interest stirredup by Kinder's journal Dreamworks, that theissues here (for film and for other arts) arelively ones. What neither Petric's introductionnor any of the individual articles quite does,however, is to bring into sharp focus what Itake to be the central issue in the new under-standings of the dream process being urged bypeople like Hobson. Unless I misunderstandtheir position, these researchers have estab-lished that the neural machinery automaticallythrows up a mass of random, jumpy imagery.

The "work" part of the dreamwork lies in thebrain's effort to integrate this imagery into thesemi-coherent patterns we actually experiencesubjectively. So far, however, there seems to beno workable theory of how this integratingprocess actually operates. It is easy, of course,to sympathize with Hobson's desire to escapethe symbol-mythology and repression-spottingof Freudian interpretation. But it's one thingto say that somebody else's mechanism doesn'twork, and quite another to propose a mechanismthat does. One reason the matter is of electricinterest to film people is that the process, what-ever it is, must curiously parallel the work afilm viewer does in integrating the materialpresented by successive shots, and not only inthe dense montage context that Petric empha-sizes. We know that viewers must learn to"read" the conventions by which film-makerslink disparate shots. It may be that we alsohave to learn to dream. The problem is prob-

ably more difficult than the dramatic-explica-tion problem Freud and his followers took itto be. But pretending it's solved, or isn't there,will not profit us much.

-ERNEST CALLENBACH

TOWARD STRUCTURALPSYCHOLOGYFCINEMA

ByJohn M. Carroll. heHague and NewYork: Mouton, 980.

Anyone curious to know what contributiontransformational-generative grammar canmake to film study is strongly encouraged toread this book. The book will not provide thefinal answer but it gives enough of an indica-tion to either whet or satisfy most readers'curiosity.

lengthy essay, in which he surveys the entirehistorical trajectory of thinking about filmsand dreams, and describes how many differentfilm-makers and schools have used dream-likefilm styles. It is clear, from the interest stirredup by Kinder's journal Dreamworks, that theissues here (for film and for other arts) arelively ones. What neither Petric's introductionnor any of the individual articles quite does,however, is to bring into sharp focus what Itake to be the central issue in the new under-standings of the dream process being urged bypeople like Hobson. Unless I misunderstandtheir position, these researchers have estab-lished that the neural machinery automaticallythrows up a mass of random, jumpy imagery.

The "work" part of the dreamwork lies in thebrain's effort to integrate this imagery into thesemi-coherent patterns we actually experiencesubjectively. So far, however, there seems to beno workable theory of how this integratingprocess actually operates. It is easy, of course,to sympathize with Hobson's desire to escapethe symbol-mythology and repression-spottingof Freudian interpretation. But it's one thingto say that somebody else's mechanism doesn'twork, and quite another to propose a mechanismthat does. One reason the matter is of electricinterest to film people is that the process, what-ever it is, must curiously parallel the work afilm viewer does in integrating the materialpresented by successive shots, and not only inthe dense montage context that Petric empha-sizes. We know that viewers must learn to"read" the conventions by which film-makerslink disparate shots. It may be that we alsohave to learn to dream. The problem is prob-

ably more difficult than the dramatic-explica-tion problem Freud and his followers took itto be. But pretending it's solved, or isn't there,will not profit us much.

-ERNEST CALLENBACH

TOWARD STRUCTURALPSYCHOLOGYFCINEMA

ByJohn M. Carroll. heHague and NewYork: Mouton, 980.

Anyone curious to know what contributiontransformational-generative grammar canmake to film study is strongly encouraged toread this book. The book will not provide thefinal answer but it gives enough of an indica-tion to either whet or satisfy most readers'curiosity.

lengthy essay, in which he surveys the entirehistorical trajectory of thinking about filmsand dreams, and describes how many differentfilm-makers and schools have used dream-likefilm styles. It is clear, from the interest stirredup by Kinder's journal Dreamworks, that theissues here (for film and for other arts) arelively ones. What neither Petric's introductionnor any of the individual articles quite does,however, is to bring into sharp focus what Itake to be the central issue in the new under-standings of the dream process being urged bypeople like Hobson. Unless I misunderstandtheir position, these researchers have estab-lished that the neural machinery automaticallythrows up a mass of random, jumpy imagery.

The "work" part of the dreamwork lies in thebrain's effort to integrate this imagery into thesemi-coherent patterns we actually experiencesubjectively. So far, however, there seems to beno workable theory of how this integratingprocess actually operates. It is easy, of course,to sympathize with Hobson's desire to escapethe symbol-mythology and repression-spottingof Freudian interpretation. But it's one thingto say that somebody else's mechanism doesn'twork, and quite another to propose a mechanismthat does. One reason the matter is of electricinterest to film people is that the process, what-ever it is, must curiously parallel the work afilm viewer does in integrating the materialpresented by successive shots, and not only inthe dense montage context that Petric empha-sizes. We know that viewers must learn to"read" the conventions by which film-makerslink disparate shots. It may be that we alsohave to learn to dream. The problem is prob-

ably more difficult than the dramatic-explica-tion problem Freud and his followers took itto be. But pretending it's solved, or isn't there,will not profit us much.

-ERNEST CALLENBACH

TOWARD STRUCTURALPSYCHOLOGYFCINEMA

ByJohn M. Carroll. heHague and NewYork: Mouton, 980.

Anyone curious to know what contributiontransformational-generative grammar canmake to film study is strongly encouraged toread this book. The book will not provide thefinal answer but it gives enough of an indica-tion to either whet or satisfy most readers'curiosity.

4333