no . . . you're not off your rocker . . . while this issue [of spectacle
getting in the way of narrative rather than supporting it] is not often
addressed as baldly as your question addresses it i think it is really the main
issue informing the ongoing discussion of [or debate about] film vs. video . .
. for some the actual visual expereince seems to be the center of cinema and
for them, obviously, changing the amount of visual info is a critical loss . .
. for others the images are merely modes of delivery and the text or meaning or
{well, here i give up, for the word chosen to finish this phrase is precisely
what is at the core of the debate so i leave it as a blank} ------ of the movie
are more than (or merely immanent in) the images
your question . . . to which there is clearly o ready answer . . . is a crucial
one . . . keep thinking about the implicatiions of various possible answers,
and share them with the list
 
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]