Original message:
>
> Let's take MFrank seriously for a moment.
>
> It seems to me that nearly all film storytelling uses narration which is to
> some degree unreliable.  Ambiguity, visual and otherwise, is used to tease
> the audience in one direction or another.   And don't the best of stories
> usually end with an unanticipated twist?
>
> Surely only small children believe (or would want to believe) that what the
> camera shows them is the whole truth.
>
> Are there any examples of well-known films in which visual trickery isn't
> used?
>
 
i'm delighted to be taken seriously, even if only for a moment, but find it
hard to think about the questions reaised in this message . . . would it be
possible to get, from the writer or others on the list, examples of the kind
of "visual trickery" that is used in "nearly all film story-telling" . . .
 
. . . for my part, what i THINK i'm concerned with is the extent to which the
camera in a film (or editing, or cinematography, or mise-en-scene. . . that
is, all the things that the film-maker controls to shape the finished work)
must be theorized as similar to the language in a novel, and thus equally
subject to fallibility
 
mike frank
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]