somehow i just got around to liz weis's comments of 4 september in which she says, in part: > Often a naive or biased narrator is contradicted by the images--which are > SOMEHOW even more "objective" in contrast to the unreliable speaker. > Case in point: "Badlands" with its naive narration spoken by Sissy > Spacek's character. [caps mine] yes . . . terrence malick's entire two-[wonderful]-film career was based on this device, a kind of eisensteinian montage in which the image track collides with the sound track to produce something quite new . . . this device is not all that uncommon, but is rarely theorized in this way . . . . . . but more important [i think] . . . is the claim that images are SOMEHOW more objective than speakers . . . is this always true? . . . is it true in cinema specifically or is it a generalization about all images vis a vis words? . . . is someone out there willing to speculate or theorize about why this should be so, how it is so, and what use the language[s] of cinema can make of it? . . . aren't these issues at the heart of understanding the way images communicate? 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]