Clark,
Just a quick reply. Our use of the word frame is a differAnce, and won't
become a differend (an argument that never speaks the same language, so goes
on and on). I enjoyed your reflection on the word "frame," and hadn't
thought of those aspects of film. Your reflection is very similar to the
meaning I intended, even if coming from a different context. It is also a
nice illustration of the concept of differAnce, revealing one thing while
obscuring other things.
In talking about framing, you raised the concept of a "border." Interesting
thought worth more discussion.
But back to the word frame: the meaning I had in mind was akin to the
concept of spin or interpretation - that is, specifying a meaning of
something. This use may come more from the world of psychology, which I
visit often. How we interpret meaning can be both intentional and
unintentional. Postmodern is a word whose meaning is open to interpretation
and to evolution, so it can be given a meaning (and often is given the
preferred meaning of the user). We all have different perspectives, so the
way we frame things is typically from our perspective.
> Just a few quick thoughts on context and how the Frame provides a border
> between the internal context and the external context. I think, relative
to
> Sarah's questions of truth, that the framing issue is apt.
>
Regarding "border," in a movie, I suppose that the border can be somewhat
transparent, allowing us to see what the writer and creatives intended, and
can have a very broad outline that includes (to play off of) existing
cultural meaning, as you say, "allows an exterior context to become the
context.. "
- Scott Cole
|