SCREEN-L Archives

November 1996, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Proportional 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:
Peter Latham <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:40:22 -0500
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
Some narrators lie. Some are simply wrong.THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962)
introduced the possibility of the brainwashed narrator."Raymond Shaw is the
kindest and bravest man I ever knew." the tortured members of his patrol
"recall". Each "recounts" his (false) experience with great conviction.
 
In this example, the camera is "king", i.e. it is not subjective or capable
of lying. But everyone else is.
 
Suppose a film was based, not on the vagaries of human perception, but on
the distortions of induced misperception. How would the film-maker handle
the misinformation and siclose the truth? Could this be done? Has it been
done?
 
----
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