On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Donald Larsson wrote: > > A much more complex question about the role of sound occurs in Coppola's > THE CONVERSATION. Many commentators have assumed that the new emphasis on > a line in a taped coversation (from "He'd *kill* us if he got the chance" to > "He'd kill *us* if he got the chance") means that the content of the tape > has always been in doubt--but close analysis shows that the former emphasis > is the correct one. The second statement occurs through the new understanding > acquired by Gene Hackman as he comes to understand the nature of the plot he > was involved in. But there are visual reinforcements of several types in > THE CONVERSATION whose status is also questionable. > This is very interesting and made me think of a portion of a radio interview I heard tonight regarding the recent Texaco controversy. According to an investigator (hired by Texaco), the portion of the tape in question was "enhanced" to make it "clearer" (his words), and he argues that when the words are heard in this way, they are not what they seem to be; e.g., where someone was thought to be saying "all the black jellybeans agree" he was actually saying "we have no black jellybeans or green". In this case we have no image at all, but I suspect that if the analysts could see the people talking, especially if they could see the lips of the speaker, they would have stronger evidence, one way or the other. It might very well be that the image would make it no less clear, but might it seem so? Ooh, that reminds me of another "news" incident from some years ago, when a "reenactment" (or rather, a speculative enactment) was shown on network news of a story of someone being accused of some kind of white collar or political crime, with the news item narrated in the usual way. The disclaimer was not added until after the first showing of the film and was printed in white in the corner of the image (if I remember correctly, only for a few seconds at most). The audience, naturally, believed the false image was true and interpreted it from what was said. I suppose the question this raises is still one of which has supremacy, image or narration, since most viewers assumed that if they saw the image, the accusation must be a fact, yet the image was false. This, of course, is a bit different from a fiction film--or is it? Most people tend to accept both what they see and what they hear on news casts as "truth", yet archival footage is used all the time when current footage isn't available, just to give people something to look at besides the anchor. The only way we have to interpret what we see on the news, however, is the voice of the newsperson reporting. A little more to chew on. Meredith ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]