Print

Print


Interesting that you mention this.  It makes me think of the Looney Toons
cartoon, Duck Amuck, in which Daffy's environment and situation keep
changing as he tries to figure out what kind of story he's in.  The
entire film plays with not only notions of sound vs. image, but the very
nature of film narrative.  At one point, Daffy's figure is comletely
erased and we hear only his voice.  His body is then replaced with a
bizarre imaginary creature that looks part flower, part animal, with
polka dots and quite unnatural colors.  But we know it's Daffy because
his voice remains the same.  In this case the image is unreliable.
We aren't talking about a narrator here, though, so we're still, in a
sense, priviledging vision, since we know Daffy from previous images.
 
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Paul Ryersbach wrote:
 
> I'm wondering what the implications are of the widespread use of digital
> manipulation/computer animation in film. When it becomes common knowledge
> amongst the audience that events represented in the film narrative can be
> seamlessly constructed from elements that cannot be said to exist in the
> same way that actors and sets exist before, during and after shooting,
> then the audience must shift its expectations about the veracity of the
> image over text.
>
> Also, it seems to me that when articulation of spacial and temporal
> elements is done counterintuitively, as occurs in the Quays' _Institute
> Benjamenta_, then the verity of the visual over the audial, or of image
> over text, is subverted.
>
>         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]
>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]