i'm just a little puzzled by the extensive discussion of diegetic/non-diegetic sound, and the way filmmakers have so often played with the borders between them . . . puzzled because the foundational premise underlying the very possibility of this "border crossing"--what Rifaterre would call a semiotic scandal-- is that the sounds we hear on the sound track do not HAVE to be diegetic . . . now, what makes this so interesting in itself is the counter-fact that by the conventions of the language of narrative cinema, in the absence of some powerful contrary force, everything that appears on the screen IS DIEGETIC. . . of course there are some exceptions . . . think of the sheep at the beginning of chaplin's MODERN TIMES . . . an image that is not motivated by any diegetic element . . . but in general, if we see it on the screen it must exist in the world of at least one of the characters . . . closer to the model of the flowers at the start of chaplin's CITY LIGHTS . . . both images, flowers and sheep, work the same way, as figures [if you prefer, symbols] but while one outrageously violates diegetic norms, the other compromises its figurative impulse by having the flowers [which represent the girl, and the love she might offer] actually be in the diegesis . . . the motivation being that the girl is a flower seller so . . . the really interesting question in this conversation [i think] is whether there are abundant examples of NON DIEGETIC IMAGES IN MAINSTREAM CINEMA, and--if so--whether the border between diegetic and non-diegetic is played with on the image track the same way it so often is on the sound track . . . mike frank <[log in to unmask]> ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]