a comment on a comment on a comment: on 20 sept. [log in to unmask] wrote: > > MFrank wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Seeing is believing. Right? As to why we tend to believe what we see, I am > anxious to find out if anyone on the list is brave enough to even speculate > on that one. > > Randy Thom > . . . but i thought it was one of the biggest burdens of almost all contemporary thought to dmonstrate that seeing is NOT always or necessarily believing . . . that all vision is biased, partial, skewed, ideological . . . a matter of representation rather than ding-an-sich-keit . . . . . . this is where i hope we turn now mike frank > To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L > in the message. Problems? Contact [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]