Erica--
At last, a sober contribution. You make a great point about the uses of the
televised images, and why they must be seen. I, too, wonder where this
impulse for censoring comes from. But as I pointed out before, the
interesting thing to consider here is the phenomenon of the democratized
camera, the ``eye in the street,'' which was actually there, to frame and
capture the actual event. Isn't it interesting to consider, for example, how
the institutional media (CNN, for example) was at first fixed to set
location in mid-town Manhattan for its shots of the World Trade Center,
whereas people with home video cameras had far more revealing angles from
which to shoot? This priviledged position is no longer the network camera,
but the small, hand-held camera owned by anybody, anywhere. Thanks, Erica,
for your clear thinking....
Robert Koehler
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erica Sheen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: A Terrible Act of Evil (SIC)
> > > robert,
> >
> > Unfortunately those images muck it all up and evoke purely emotive
> > responses, which is something our gov't appreciates. It allows the
masses
> > to be rallied behind a singular ideology.
>
> Why would members of a film/philosphy list say this? And what do you
mean -
> that they 'shouldn't' be shown, or that you don't want to see them? Why
did
> we spend weeks discussing the documentary/film distinction earlier this
> summer, if we can't use this material intelligently as a basis for true
> sympathy and a serious response?
>
> Erica
|