> (The camera is not human !) The sound track by > > contrast is language, and spoken language presupposes a human > > source, hence its potential unreliability. For movies and theater to > > invert the scale of reliability, the visual image would have to be > > presented as the perception or act of imagination of a specific > > character (which means the camera would be humanized) and > > the sound track would have to be the voice-over of a 3rd person > > narrator. > > > . . . is, i think, EXACTLY right . . . the inversion would require making the > camera human while presenting the sound as objective/omniscient/foundational > (though none of those terms are exactly right) . . . but the larger question, > philosphical perhaps or ideological rather than strictly narratological, is > why this doesn't happen, or doesn't happen with any regularity > > mike What about a film that is iconoclastic? Sort of in the sense that the 16th and 17th century Protestants distrusted the use of visual imagery by Catholic tradition. Would the critique of a certain pattern of visual imagery simply use the existing sensual hierarchy to accomplish the critique? paul ryersbach ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]