Robert,
I think you fall into a trap when you say
> I prefer not to view films as texts, even though I'm currently writing
> a screenplay. Films are, above all, image with sound...
The notion of film-as-text or the film-text has nothing to do with the
old sense of text as consisting in written language, but refers to
inscription. The film-text is what is inscribed in the form of images
and soundtrack on the celulloid or whatever medium carries it.
Look at it this way: the play has a text, but its performance is not in
itself a text - (unless it's recorded/filmed - here I think of Louis
Malle's wonderful film 'Vanya on 42nd Street', which I regard as a
documentary of a performance.) In the case of film, there is of course
no difference. And the film-text is not the script, which is only the
blueprint. It is useful to compare this with music, which in the Western
classical tradition is similarly divided. The score is the text,
performance is performance of a score (text). In fact, the film script
is much less specific than the score. At least anyone reading a score
knows what the piece will sound like. When you read a script, you can
imagine, but cannot tell, what it will look (or soound) like. I suspect,
from the general tenor of your always interesting postings, that you
would agree with this.
There is nevertheless a serious problem with the concept of the
film-text. A text is a synchronic object - to conceive a cultural
product as a text is to conceive an object which exists in its entirety
- with a beginning, middle and end, always already there. This, however,
is to suppress the dimension of time, the time of unfolding, the setting
of rhythm and pace, the nuances of phrasing - all those things which in
music and acting are part of the performance. It is this sense of the
screen as a place of time that is so often missing from the practice of
film theory, which makes Deleuze such an exciting piece of filmosofy.
Michael Chanan
|