on the subject of unreliable narrators matthew mah argues that "the camera captures everything" and that since, therefore, there's no possible way of discovering its own partiality [in both sense of the word] "we have to accept what it tells us" . . . ergo, no unreliable narrators in film . . . . . . most of the other responses--at least those i've read--have talked about unreliable or deluded point of view characters . . . very few have talked about the camera itself as unreliable . . . so perhaps there's widespread agreement that the camera is in some way infallible . . . and that unreliable narration of the kind that exists in novels is impossible in film . . . maybe so, though i'm very suspicious of this claim and think it reduces the notion of "narrator" to a very simple minded one . . . . . . but if it is true that the camera "captures everything" . . . or if that what the congregation of Screen-L takes to be the case, then at the very least we need an account of why or how this should be the case . . . the assertion itself is hardly an argument 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]