SCREEN-L Archives

September 1995, Week 2

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:
Randy Thom <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:44:09 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
mathewmah wrote:
 
 > 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 . . .
 
The problem with having visual images lie is that it wouldn't be filmmaking
anymore.  It'd be belittled to nothing less than propaganda making a cheap
attempt at fooling a smart audience.  However, there are many examples where
we
perceive what the camera shows us as a lie.  This isn't so, as we are merely
just looking at whatever angle the camera happens to be at.  I can't think of
any noteworthy examples, but all of us have seen an image that we think is
something, until the camera pans out and it is something else entirely.
 
The point is, if we let the camera do whatever it wishes, it lowers the
standard of filmmaking.  If we allow such methods, then anything can be made
into a movie. And that isn't so.
 
 
 
 
Mathew, I don't understand what you're talking about.
 
What do you mean when you say that "the problem with having visual images lie
is that it wouldn't be film making any more."?
 
When you cut from a distant shot of a car to a close-up of a car, that is a
lie.  It is something which does not happen in the real world, only in film.
 It is therefore a misrepresentation of reality. In other words, a lie.  Does
that mean that in order for films to be films they can't have cuts, or
disolves; that camera lenses can't have filters, that a street can't be
sprayed with water in order to make it look more interesting for night-time
photography?  It didn't really rain; that water was artificially placed
there, so isn't that a lie?  Films use actors.  An actors performance is a
lie isn't it?  The guy who plays Indiana Jones is actually an actor named
Harrison Ford, you know.
 
As far as I am concerned, there isn't anything in any film which isn't a lie.
 But if it is a good film, all the little lies conspire to tell certain
truths.
 
 
Randy Thom
 
----
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