Original message:

>

> Let's take MFrank seriously for a moment.

>

> It seems to me that nearly all film storytelling uses narration which is to

> some degree unreliable.  Ambiguity, visual and otherwise, is used to tease

> the audience in one direction or another.   And don't the best of stories

> usually end with an unanticipated twist?

>

> Surely only small children believe (or would want to believe) that what the

> camera shows them is the whole truth.

>

> Are there any examples of well-known films in which visual trickery isn't

> used?

>

 

i'm delighted to be taken seriously, even if only for a moment, but find it

hard to think about the questions reaised in this message . . . would it be

possible to get, from the writer or others on the list, examples of the kind

of "visual trickery" that is used in "nearly all film story-telling" . . .

 

. . . for my part, what i THINK i'm concerned with is the extent to which the

camera in a film (or editing, or cinematography, or mise-en-scene. . . that

is, all the things that the film-maker controls to shape the finished work)

must be theorized as similar to the language in a novel, and thus equally

subject to fallibility

 

mike frank

 

----

To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L

in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]