At 01:54 PM 10/31/96 -0400, Mike Frank wrote: >my question: why do we privilege the video over the audio so automatically, >or intuitively [not to say "naturally"] that most of us--like peter--can >simply take it as a given requiring no further comment that when the video >and audio clash, the video is telling the truth?? I wonder if the clash isn't between sound and image but between "logocentrism" and other modes of communicating information. Take this anecdote from Stanley Kubrick concerning his film _2001_: "A number of people thought Floyd went to the planet Clavius. Why they think there's a planet Clavius I'll never know. But they hear him asked: 'Where are you going?', and he says, 'I'm going to Clavius'. With many people - boom - that one word registers in their heads and they don't look at fifteen shots of the Moon; they don't see he's going to the moon." The idea is that language (dialogue *or* titles, contained within the sound or the image track) is arguably a more explicit mode of transmitting information than more broadly iconic or acoustic elements of film. Philippe Mather ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ---------------------\ /----------------------------------\ /-------------- he End | | The End | | T | | | | ather Productions | | (c) 1996 P.Mather Productions | | (c) 1996 P.M oy.cc.uregina.ca | | [log in to unmask] | | matherp@ler | | | | ---------------------/ \----------------------------------/ \-------------- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]