SCREEN-L Archives

September 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Randy Thom <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 8 Sep 1995 14:26:15 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
dsmith wrote:
 
 
It might be more edifying to identify those films - if any - that do not
use an _unreliable narrator_, since the concept in this thread has being
stretched to mean any protagonist, p.o.v. or plot device, wily-nily. Surely
the thrust of mainstream academic criticism of the past 30 or so years has
been that all literary and filmic utterances (productions) are
_unreliable_, carrying personal and collective socio-political agendas,
which are frequently hidden or camouflaged, and we must tease them apart
(deconstruct) to discover the _real meaning_ (according to whose agenda, ad
nauseum).
 
So, what fictional film does not have an unreliable narrator?
 
 
Isn't it obvious?  Forrest Gump  !   Forrest is reliable in every sense of
the word.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2