SCREEN-L Archives

November 1996, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Do not read this line." <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 12:04:36 -0400
Comments:
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2