the following passage, which i just stumbled upon, from a recent note from
peter latham, leads me to ask once again a question i raised a while back to
little avail
speaking of unreliable narration in film peter says:
> Unreliability is easily shown by a contrast between the spoken word and
> visual image. In HC, the narrator says: My New Year's Resolution is to be
> kinder to others.... while the film shows the speaker agressively expelling
> a young man from a party. The risk of demonstrating unreliability less
> directly is that it may beceome obscure, though The Usual Suspects did it
> admirably.
my question: why do we privilege the video over the audio so automatically,
or intuitively [not to say "naturally"] that most of us--like peter--can
simply take it as a given requiring no further comment that when the video
and audio clash, the video is telling the truth??
i know that this seems intuitively right, and i know that this is the
convention that hollywood has regularly used (cf. don lockwood's opening
autobiographical narrative in SITR) . . . but those are not answers, i think,
they are symptoms of the question . . . something more must be going on here,
and i'm eager to find new ways of thinking about the question
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]