SCREEN-L Archives

September 1995, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Sep 1995 19:17:09 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
***original message***
 
I may be wrong  but it seems all the examples have been related to the
visual.  What about unreliable narration with respect to sound, like the
Conversation in which we hear, along with gene hackman, a certain
inflection of "He'd _kill_ us if he had the chance" which later becomes
"He'd kill _us_ if he had the chance."  Silverman discusses this in _The
Acoustic Mirror_.
 
pam robertson
 
*********************--end of original message
 
PR is responding to the ostensible claims of many of the messages and examples
which SEEM to emphasize the visual whule actually focusing on the understanding
of a diegetic narrator, expressed or implied . . .
 
what no one seems to have done is pick up the real challenge of the original
question that started this thread and speculate about whether and how and how
much movies, images, oictures, can THEMSELVES lie or at least be only partially
true and thus very partial . . .
 
having a film in which the images tell the truth and thereby show us the
 inadequacy of the voice we are hearing is easy and common . . . but a film,
real or hypothetical, in which the words were true but the images lied, and the
words gave the lie to the images . . . that would be interesting indeed
 
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2