>
>in other words, by convention the sound track can represent a total
distortion
>or fabrication by a character (i.e., a "lie"), while the image track can
>represent only a character's intervention in a representation that still
>retains a certain degree of objective validity . . .
>
>in retrospect i'm a little uneasy about 2 things:  one is the assumption
in the
>above that all of this is merely a matter of convention . . . is it only
>a convention or is it grounded in something else? . . and if it is only a
>convention, does it apply only within cinema or are there other
>representation systems in which it--or an analogous convention--apply?
 
>mike frank
>
 
I hate to use a cliche' reference, but doesn't Antonioni's *Blow Up* play
on this ambiguity of what is "real" and what is "perceived"?  I'm referring
specifically to the scene where the mimes are playing mime-tennis with no
tennis ball (on the video...) but a tennis match is clearly heard on the
soundtrack.  I would say without a doubt that the kinds of 'truth' that
have been discussed here are indeed based on convention (aren't they all?),
and I too feel a little as though I'm belaboring the obvious.
 
As per examples in other representational systems... I'm tempted to mention
free indirect discourse, wherein the voice of the narrator seems to merge
with that of a character.  (Madame Bovary is the first text that comes to
mind.)
 
I hope I'm not too far off base!
 
Aaron Curtiss
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]