Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:04:36 -0400 |
Comments: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
the--on my system at least--anonymous contributor of the following
[excerpted] message . . .
(The camera is not human !) The sound track by
> contrast is language, and spoken language presupposes a human
> source, hence its potential unreliability. For movies and theater to
> invert the scale of reliability, the visual image would have to be
> presented as the perception or act of imagination of a specific
> character (which means the camera would be humanized) and
> the sound track would have to be the voice-over of a 3rd person
> narrator.
. . . is, i think, EXACTLY right . . . the inversion would require making the
camera human while presenting the sound as objective/omniscient/foundational
(though none of those terms are exactly right) . . . but the larger question,
philosphical perhaps or ideological rather than strictly narratological, is
why this doesn't happen, or doesn't happen with any regularity
mike
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|
|
|