SCREEN-L Archives

January 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
DOUG SIMPSON <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 13 Jan 1995 09:17:01 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
        In some of the reference works I've studied in film classes,
some critics argue that, by its very nature, any cartoon is self-
referential because it clearly and visually "shows" itself as being
created and thus nonrealistic.  "Duck Amuck" is one of the examples
that were used by several of the critics that discussed self-
referential material.  Others chose films that deliberately mixed
realistic characters (live actors) with animation, like "Who Framed
Roger Rabbit" and some of the Disney cartoons, which they believed
"showed" the cartoons as "works" created by others by being contrasted
on the screen with live "realistic" actors and in "realistic" live
settings.
        However, a person could take this the next step forward, and
say that all film is by its own nature self-referential.  A zoom in,
a pan, a special effect, any added or deliberately chosen film action
"shows" to the audience that what is being watched is a creation, and
not realistic, even a documentary about events that have really
occurred.
        Doug Simpson

ATOM RSS1 RSS2