At 11:51 am 14/6/0, lynda tenter wrote:
>The real point I want to make, though, is that written language itself a)
>cannot truly express image or sound as well as image or sound can, even
>though language is a hybrid of both. The cinematic language may be
>something understood through film, but people keep attempting to express it
>through the more common languages. Human experience has as language unto
>itself, pattern based, I believe - human behaviour can be studied, and
>understood as a language, though one very difficult to express in the more
>easily understood language in which I explain this now.
>Also, I would like to add that this language itself - and I will focus on
>the writen visual aspect of it - is still just a set of images which appear
>in a certain order to be 'read' as we have been conditioned to. film is a
>set of images which appear in a certain order to be (and you'll have to
>forgive me, it seems the only word to fit) 'read' as we have been
>conditioned to, through our past experiences. Any film which uses images
>will create a reaction in our minds based on our own human conditioning.
I think we would do well to move beyond the association of language with
writing. The spoken word is anterior to 'text', and is functionally
dependent for its efficiency upon a lot of other factors esp. gesture and
context. The experience of film is the same i.e. social in a material
(ritual?) sense. We (academics) may learn certain ways of reading a film
but does this have much to do with the various ways filmakers go about
their work and/or the various uses to which these products are put. Am I
the only person to think about what I'm going to have for dinner tonight
while watching a film? Do my lapses in concentration invalidate my
experience of the picture?
Yours aye
Kris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|