MFrank wrote:
 
 
somehow i just got around to liz weis's comments of 4 september in which she
says, in part:
 
 
> Often a naive or biased narrator is contradicted by the images--which are
> SOMEHOW even more "objective" in contrast to the unreliable speaker.
> Case in point:  "Badlands" with its naive narration spoken by Sissy
> Spacek's character. [caps mine]
 
yes . . . terrence malick's entire two-[wonderful]-film career was based on
this device, a kind of eisensteinian montage in which the image track
collides with the sound track to produce something quite new . . . this
device is not all that uncommon, but is rarely theorized in this way . . .
 
. . . but more important [i think] . . . is the claim that images are SOMEHOW
more objective than speakers . . . is this always true? . . .  is it true in
cinema specifically or is it a generalization about all images vis a vis
words?
. . . is someone out there willing to speculate or theorize
about why this should be so, how it is so, and what use the language[s] of
cinema can make of it? . . . aren't these issues at the heart of
understanding the way images communicate?
 
 
 
Seeing is believing.  Right?   As to why we tend to believe what we see, I am
anxious to find out if anyone on the list is brave enough to even speculate
on that one.
 
Randy Thom
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]