I am in total agreement with Scott's comments concerning why James Ryan could see the battle at Omaha Beach. However, I felt that this was a major flaw and to me totally took away from the realism of the film. -Cameron On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Scott Hutchins wrote: > My suggestion as to why James Ryan could see the battle in his imagination > is that he had seen combat, so the Omaha Beach section was based on > collective memory and the stories he would have heard about the battle. > > Scott > > =============================================================================== = > Scott Andrew Hutchins > > http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi > > Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More! > > > > Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours. > > Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a > knack for picking out the interesting bits. > > --David Williamson > _Travelling North_ > Act Two Scene Three > > > > On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Damian Peter Sutton wrote: > > > I think that it should be pointed out, re: narration and tha > > first/third person, that the history of cinema is replete > > with instances of the narration switching from character to > > character, and to leaving characters completely. This is > > shown by the continual use of distanciation and estrangement > > by filmmakers such as Robert Bresson and Jean Luc Godard. > > In this way, narration is structured in Hollywood films by > > its presence in others. > > The argument should not be: > > Why doesn't Spielberg continue with narration through one > > individual? Or give us privileged information beyond the > > character? > > > > but: > > > > When Spielberg changes narrator, what is the reason for it, > > and how does this advance the story? > > > > It's a semantic point, but every film which comes long like > > this sparks the same debate, which only goes to show that > > consistent narrative through a single person is a paradigm > > established partly by its own absence. > > If there are inconsistencies in Spielbergs reasons for the > > change of narrator, (not just the spoken narrator, but the > > character to which the spectator is sutured) then there > > should be sufficient grounds for criticism. > > > > As to mystery films, Charles Derry's point is apt. If we are > > to continue to believe that film excites the scopophilia of > > the spectator, the generalised pleasure of the investigative > > look, mystery films seem ideal in exciting the audiences > > curiosity in such a way. The investigative look, however, > > still exists in other films, and the device of disguise and > > revelation (what will Ryan be like/act like, when we meet > > him) is apparent in all films. It should surely follow that > > the change in narrator not only keeps the audience > > 'working' to understand, but constantly excites and satiates > > the scopophilic tendencies through the novelty of > > points-of-view. > > Changes in narration like this are best exemplified in > > sequences themselves, and in particular the > > shot-reverse-shot. > > Some S-r-S sequences require the agency of the characters, > > (with the camera over the shoulder) to develop the > > continuity. But in sequences in which the plot places another > > character as the viewer of a spectacle in which the narrator > > is a part, the logical pattern of shots to satisfy the viewer > > is the point-of-view shot from the second character. > > This may sound confusing, so here's an example: > > In the circus scene in Quo Vadis (LeRoy, 1951), the > > spectator is asked to follow the narrator Marcus, who is > > forced to watch his lover be killed in the circus. The shot > > pattern switches from him, to his lover, to her champion in > > the circus, and the Emperor. Each holds the narration for > > the period of their 'viewpoint'. In fact, the sequence is as > > much about the battle for narration as it is about the fight > > for life/honour. > > (This textual analysis is clumsy, I'm afraid, but I'm a > > little fuzzy) > > > > It's wrong to place the narration in one character, because > > few filmmakers do it themselve, and most provide the > > narration for the investigative gaze of the spectator to 'act > > as narrator for themselves'. > > > > ---------------------- > > Damian Peter Sutton > > [log in to unmask] > > > > ---- > > To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L > > in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask] > > > > ---- > Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the > University of Alabama. > ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]