SCREEN-L Archives

July 1997, Week 3

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
Content-transfer-encoding:
7BIT
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:51:53 -0600
MIME-version:
1.0
Content-type:
TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (26 lines)
Dennis Rothermel points out:
" The POV is a narrative construction and not a
technical/grammatical device.  That an audience accepts this identification
of image with viewpoint is fully a function of not just general cinematic
convention but more importantly the specific cinematic context, i.e., the
sequence of images and sounds before, during and after the POV."
 
 
This is precisely what Kuleshov is supposed to have demonstrated with his
famous experiment about the actor and the different items he is supposed to
be "looking" at.  And the device is exploited by Eisenstein and others,
 including
more contemporary experimental filmmakers, to create false eyeline matches,
shot/reverse shot sequences, etc.  In the hands of a truly great incompetent,
like Ed Wood, the failure of the POV (or its incomprehensibility) is an
 interesting
effect in itself.
 
Nice comments about the ending of STAGECOACH, BTW.
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
To sign off 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