SCREEN-L Archives

July 1994


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
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:48:34 EDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (26 lines)
Unfortunately, I wasn't as excited about this film as the pro-mo's and
reviews made me think I'd be.  I think I was bothered by the film wanting
to have it two ways: 1) no "real" representation of Gould but for his
recordings--no photographs, films, drawings of the real guy--so no
real VISUAL representation; 2) a very verisimilar choice to have only
one performer portray the man for the whole film (but for the childhood
scenes, of course).  I wanted a variety of men playing the guy, alongside
some "real" footage, and any other kinds of representation the filmmakers
could get their hands and cameras on.  If the idea is to show many different
people's impressions of the man, then wouldn't they all, in some way,
"see" a different man?
I'm also intrigued with how Gould's political ideas about recording interact
with the representational tension I outlined above:  Gould wanted everyone
to "hear the same thing"--no sitting in the back of the hall, no poorly
tuned piano in one hall and a well-tuned one in another, etc.  Of course,
as is probably clear from what I said above, I don't think everyone CAN
ever hear (or see) the same thing.  (I put "hear the same thing" in quotes--
it's not a Gould quote, just one of my interpretations of how his recording
policy might play itself out.)
As for other "experimental" documentaries, how about the Noam Chompsky film?
[log in to unmask]