i'm just a little puzzled by the extensive discussion of diegetic/non-diegetic
sound, and the way filmmakers have so often played with the borders between
them . . . puzzled because the foundational premise underlying the very
possibility of this "border crossing"--what Rifaterre would call a semiotic
scandal-- is that the sounds we hear on the sound track do not HAVE to be
diegetic . . . now, what makes this so interesting in itself is the
counter-fact that by the conventions of the language of narrative cinema, in
the absence of some powerful contrary force, everything that appears on the
screen IS DIEGETIC.  .  .
of course there are some exceptions . . . think of the sheep at the beginning
of chaplin's MODERN TIMES . . . an image that is not motivated by any
diegetic element . . . but in general, if we see it on the screen it must
exist in the world of at least one of the characters . . . closer to the
model of the flowers at the start of chaplin's CITY LIGHTS . . . both images,
flowers and sheep, work the same way, as figures [if you prefer, symbols] but
while one outrageously violates diegetic norms, the other compromises its
figurative impulse by having the flowers [which represent the girl, and the
love she might offer] actually be in the diegesis . . . the motivation being
that the girl is a flower seller
 
so . . . the really interesting question in this conversation [i think] is
whether there are abundant examples of NON DIEGETIC IMAGES IN MAINSTREAM
CINEMA, and--if so--whether the border between diegetic and non-diegetic is
played with on the image track the same way it so often is on the sound track
. . .
 
mike frank   <[log in to unmask]>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]