On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Matthew Mah wrote: > > What happens with the narrator in film? Can we accept the camera as > > a > > narrator? (in comparison to the narrator in literary works)I am > > thinking > > particularly about those films, like The Age of Innocence, where you > > have a > > narrator throughout the whole film. > > I wouldn't consider the camera a narrator. If you've gone far enough into > studying narrators, you'll recall things like intrusive narration, telescoping > narration and the lot. In all I think there are 5. This is what narration is, > it tells a certain side of the story. Narrators are always biased in no matter > what medium. The tone of the voice, the relationship between the narrator and > the character. However, we have the camera. The camera captures everything, > and we have to assume that it is non-biased. We have no way of confirming > this, as we do in narration, so we have to accept it. > Which is why we need to add the notion of POV, as well as that of *narration.* What the camera *sees* has a different ontological status than that of a verbal narration. It has a very different psychological effect on the audience. Ron Hoffman ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]