Ed, I fail to see how a lack of an audible reaction from an audience can possibly diminish "the visceral impact of images." If the image has an impact and you feel it, you don't need a noise to confirm for you that you feel it. On the other hand, I discuss "appropriate" laughter in the penultimate paragraph of the article, where I think I make it clear that, contrary to what you say, I don't "classify all laughter as... ironic, dismissive, or invalid." Anyway, I see that in the comments on girish's blog, you say you've never seen a Sirk film with an audience. If you ever do, I wish you luck. In the meantime, if you want to laugh at Written on the Wind in your own home, no one is arguing that you can't.
Chris F.   posted 31.08.08

You've left out an important fifth category in drawing together your assumptions about why audiences react the way they do. Why do you think it's so impossible for viewers to laugh while also appreciating the deeper emotional and thematic undercurrents behind these images? I doubt that Sirk intended for images as potent and lurid as the oil derrick or the boy riding the horse to pass by in stoic silence -- this lack of reaction diminishes the visceral impact of these images far more than laughter does. I think it's a mistake to classify all laughter as an ironic, dismissive, or invalid response to Sirk. I too wouldn't appreciate a loud, campy audience for, say, "Written on the Wind," but there are ways of laughing in response to Sirk that are not laughing AT Sirk or his characters.
Ed Howard   posted 28.08.08