> (The camera is not human !) The sound track by
> > contrast is language, and spoken language presupposes a human
> > source, hence its potential unreliability. For movies and theater to
> > invert the scale of reliability, the visual image would have to be
> > presented as the perception or act of imagination of a specific
> > character (which means  the camera would be humanized) and
> > the sound track would have to be the voice-over of a 3rd person
> > narrator.
>
>
>  . . . is, i think, EXACTLY right . . . the inversion would require making the
> camera human while presenting the sound as objective/omniscient/foundational
> (though none of those terms are exactly right) . . . but the larger question,
> philosphical perhaps or ideological rather than strictly narratological, is
> why this doesn't happen, or doesn't happen with any regularity
>
> mike
 
 
What about a film that is iconoclastic? Sort of in the sense that the
16th and 17th century Protestants distrusted the use of visual imagery by
Catholic tradition. Would the critique of a certain pattern of visual
imagery simply use the existing sensual hierarchy to accomplish the critique?
 
        paul ryersbach
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]