SCREEN-L Archives

September 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
David Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 7 Sep 1995 00:09:01 -0300
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
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?
 
David Smith
[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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2