SCREEN-L Archives

March 1993


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

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

Print Reply
"P.J. O'Connell (PA) 814-865-3333" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 3 Mar 1993 22:44:00 EST
text/plain (16 lines)
Basically, I agree.  EXCEPT that when I'm out shooting, I know SOMETHING is
happening out there that is "objective" (in my sense of the word).  It may
be shot from only one angle at a time (a common occurence), it may be
imperfectly understood by the shooter/producer/reporter, it may be too
complex for any level of near-complete understanding, but it is NOT just my
imagination.  I wonder if critics ever consider the actuality the film/VT
represents, without first adding the interpretations that the representation
forms in their minds.
I'm really not trying to extend this forever, but the discussion always
seems to bypass the fact that something happened, that it was recorded in a
certain way, it was presented in a certain way, and that it is possible (at
least in occasional, important cases) to inquire into how accurately the
representation matches the original event.  I'd like to think there is a way
to include the facts in critical discussion; I think it's important.