Print

Print


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]