no . . . you're not off your rocker . . . while this issue [of spectacle getting in the way of narrative rather than supporting it] is not often addressed as baldly as your question addresses it i think it is really the main issue informing the ongoing discussion of [or debate about] film vs. video . . . for some the actual visual expereince seems to be the center of cinema and for them, obviously, changing the amount of visual info is a critical loss . . . for others the images are merely modes of delivery and the text or meaning or {well, here i give up, for the word chosen to finish this phrase is precisely what is at the core of the debate so i leave it as a blank} ------ of the movie are more than (or merely immanent in) the images your question . . . to which there is clearly o ready answer . . . is a crucial one . . . keep thinking about the implicatiions of various possible answers, and share them with the list 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]