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]