SCREEN-L Archives

January 1995, Week 2


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
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:26:36 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (22 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>That is, (W)hy is it "safe" to *show* IRA members, but not to *hear* them?
>It reinforces the notion that TV is just radio with pictures, that the main
>televisual impact is based in the sound, that television's images are just
>there to augment the information that is predominantly carried by the
I suspect the use of actors vioces but not vissages was as much a reflection
of an imperfect and outdated statute as it was an  acknowledgement of the
power of words.  A friend of mine shot a film in the Maze prison with many
IRA members convicted of murder etc.  The producers of the film were required
to use actors voices when the subjects were speaking in their capacities as
members of the I.R.A.  However, when these same people were speaking about
_personal_ experiences or feelings they were allowed their own voices.
Then again, as someone once said to me, radio still plays a vital role in our
cultures' information system while silent films have more or less gone the
way of the Stanley Steamer.
Just a thought.-- S. McCarthy, Boston