Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:51:46 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 01:54 PM 10/31/96 -0400, Mike Frank wrote:
>my question: why do we privilege the video over the audio so automatically,
>or intuitively [not to say "naturally"] that most of us--like peter--can
>simply take it as a given requiring no further comment that when the video
>and audio clash, the video is telling the truth??
I wonder if the clash isn't between sound and image but between
"logocentrism" and other modes of communicating information. Take this
anecdote from Stanley Kubrick concerning his film _2001_:
"A number of people thought Floyd went to the planet Clavius. Why
they think there's a planet Clavius I'll never know. But they hear him
asked: 'Where are you going?', and he says, 'I'm going to Clavius'. With
many people - boom - that one word registers in their heads and they don't
look at fifteen shots of the Moon; they don't see he's going to the moon."
The idea is that language (dialogue *or* titles, contained within
the sound or the image track) is arguably a more explicit mode of
transmitting information than more broadly iconic or acoustic elements of film.
Philippe Mather
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
---------------------\ /----------------------------------\ /--------------
he End | | The End | | T
| | | |
ather Productions | | (c) 1996 P.Mather Productions | | (c) 1996 P.M
oy.cc.uregina.ca | | [log in to unmask] | | matherp@ler
| | | |
---------------------/ \----------------------------------/ \--------------
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|
|
|