In the Introduction to "Theorizing the Moving Image"
(by Noel Carroll, Cambridge University Press, 1996, page
xiii), Noel Carroll writes:
..."The term "theorizing moving images" is perhaps obscure
and warrants some immediate comment. It is not just a fancy
way of saying film theory. I prefer the idiom of MOVING
IMAGES rathet than FILM because I predict that what we call
film and, for that matter, film history will, in generations
to come, be seen as part of a larger continuous history
that will not be restricted to things made only in the so-called
medium of film but, as well, will apply to things made in
the media of video, TV, computer-generated imagery, and
we know not what. It will be a history of motion pictures
or moving pictures, as we now say in ordinary language,
or, as I recommend we call it, a history of "moving images",
of which the age of film, strictly speaking, is likely to
be only a phase."
Now isn't this SO SPECIAL! Carroll isn't just a philosopher
or film theorist, but apparently also an avatar/prophet
and is capable of knowing the future and extrapolating backwards
for us peons to enlighten us about a subject that is eventually
going to become irrelevant!
Not too concerned about your place in future "moving image
theory" history, are
you, Noel?
I haven't yet read Carroll's critique/analysis of Andre
Bazin, but I would imagine that Carroll is one of the many
who claim that Bazin was too "mystical". But I don't recall
Bazin making any hair-brained predictions like this one,
do you?
Well, I guess I'd better be a good little student and
finish reading the Introduction, if I can make it through
without losing consciousness.
Hang onto your cinematic specificity, gang, we're going
to be in for a rough ride! :)
Bill Flavell
___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|