|
This brief thread brought to mind the obvious, but oft-forgotten, fact
that film study and criticism before the advent of, first, the Steenbeck
(for running / re-running 16mm prints) and then videotape, was
inherently limited by the viewer's memory of a single screening in a
cinema.
Ray Durgnat's so often interesting writing was additionally charged with
interest in view of his oft-false memory of certain scenes and details.
I'm sure this applies to most film writing before the 1960's and
accounts for the hardly suprising paucity of intimate shot by shot
readings and a preponderance of literary motifs.
David Woods
Dr. David Woods
HOLCUS
16 John Street
Kingston Square
Hull
HU2 8DH
UK
Tel 44 (0)1482 323421
Mobile 0781 259 1772
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Automatic digest processor
Sent: 16 September 2003 22:26
To: Recipients of FILM-PHILOSOPHY digests
Subject: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 16 Sep 2003 - Special issue
(#2003-284)
There are 6 messages totalling 818 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 15 Sep 2003 to 16 Sep 2003 (#2003-283)
2. narrator
3. Mis-remembering films
4. The Big Parade
5. Confusing restricted with unreliable narration
6. restricted vs. unreliable narration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:25:12 -0400
From: Robert Burgoyne <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 15 Sep 2003 to 16 Sep 2003
(#2003-283)
At 06:00 PM 9/16/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>There are 15 messages totalling 591 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Unreliable Narrators in Film
> 2. Daisy Miller + Morern Callar
> 3. Psycho and Unreliable narration (2)
> 4. FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 10 Sep 2003 (#2003-273) comatose movies
> 5. VAMPIRES
> 6. THE BIG PARADE
> 7. TALK TO HER
> 8. UNRELIABLE NARRATORS (3)
> 9. Unreliable narrators in film (3)
> 10. 7.27 Clarke on _Endless Night_
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:21:21 +0100
>From: Verene Lack-Grieshaber <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Unreliable Narrators in Film
>
>The film which springs most to mind is 'Mortelle Randonn=E9e', with
Adjan=
>i and
>Serrault, where the narrator's voice (the Eye, played by Serrault, in
thi=
>s
>case it is not only the voice that sometimes narrates, but the
eyes/camer=
>a
>you see through) - and dislocation from both his and other's
reality/ies =
>-
>are particularly strong, interesting in view of the recent (and very
>peculiarly neutered) interpretation 'the eye of the beholder' with
Ashley
>Judd (probably the film's only saving grace) and the grossly miscast
Ewan
>Mac Gregor of the Marc Behm book of the same title (I would recommend
the
>book, it is not written in the first person though).
>
>However, if 'pure' French films (ie - no American remakes, etc) do then
t=
>ake
>your fancy, there are plenty of unreliable narrators to get your teeth
in=
>,
>and strangely enough (or maybe not), Adjani seems to have made herself
a
>niche in such films.
>
>V=E9r=E8ne
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Volker Ferenz <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Roland-Fran=E7ois Lack <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 14 September 2003 12:16
>Subject: Unreliable Narrators in Film
>
>
> >Dear Members
> >
> >I was wondering whether anyone knows some more films that use the
device=
> of
> >the unreliable narrator, such as Detour (1946), The End of the Affair
> >(1999), Fight Club (1999), Memento (2000), American Psycho (2000),
Spide=
>r
> >(2002), to name a few examples. What I am looking for is films with a
> >strongly personalized narrator that is either ideologically or
> >morally "not" normal, or narrators that get the events wrong (factual
> >unreliability).
> >
> >Any ideas?
> >
> >Thank you very much.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Volker Ferenz
> >
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:16:30 +0000
>From: "R.W. Davis Jr" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Daisy Miller + Morern Callar
>
>I'm looking to find scripts for Daisy Miller (Frederic Raphael) and
Morvern
>Callar. I've searched the online script stores without luck. Any leads?
>Thanks.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:17:25 -0700
>From: Warren Buckland <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Psycho and Unreliable narration
>
>Mike Frank is right that Ron T has changed the focus of his analysis,
in
>that his comments about the ending of Psycho do not bear on the issue
of
>unreliable narration. The key to unreliable narration is that it
>involves the spectator being duped by the narration into believing the
>veracity of the narrative information, and the canonic example is the
>lying flashback in Stage Fright. Unreliable narration therefore has a
>defeasible status - it jolts us into eventually revising the narrative,
>for we *retrospectively* realize that the narrative information
conveyed
>by the narration is not true, and needs to be replaced. This does not
>apply to the end of Psycho. Where is the unreliability? Or the
>retrospective revision? It is quite clear that the narration has
shifted
>focus to Norman. Moreover, Ron T asks why doesn't the narrative return
>to Marion: it does - the film's final shot is the trunk of Marion's
car,
>with her body inside.
>
>Warren Buckland
>Associate Professor, Film Studies
>Chapman University
>School of Film and Television
>One University Drive
>Orange
>CA 92866
>USA.
>phone: (714) 744 7018
>fax: (714) 997 6700
>Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies":
>http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
>
>
> >Yes, these are excellent distinctions between the character and the
>narrative. However, after that long-winded Psychoanalytic explanation
>by the psychiatrist, the film ends with Norman/mother taking over the
>narrative, ending the whole story with the murderer's point of view,
>inviting some conscientious spectator to wonder what Norman angle of
>vision is on the whole matter. Why doesn't the film conclude with the
>psychiatrist's explanation, returning the viewer to a norma(l)world?
Why
>does it attempt to reframe the entire narrative--all that has
>happened--as something that has only happened to Norman? In other
words,
>the film ends almost as if it were Norman's story, a story in which
>Marian Crane and John Gavin and all the others didn't figure as very
>significant. They were only significant to the viewer. Norman didn't
>know Marian's story. So why does it all end as if it concluded Norman's
>story? That is a sense in which the narrative is deceptive, leading us
>to come to the conclusion that, perhaps rightly, that Norman Bates is
>the central character. We were deceived into believing that Marian was
>the central character, but after her death, no character can be
>positioned in the center again. So does Norman take center stage?20
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:10:57 -0700
>From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 10 Sep 2003 (#2003-273) comatose
movies
>
>didn't get all the posts in AUG/SEP as I was away with a slow modem
>connection and also had computer in the repair shop...
>comatose films
>I don't know the context of the topic but two films come to mind
>reference HERZOG hypnotizing actors
>
>
>
>COME AND SEE
>a 10 year old boy who was reportedly hypnotized for some war scenes
>
>THE TIN DRUM
>also involving a young boy with whom the director stayed in life long
>contact, apparently because of the effect playing the role had on the
>child
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:16:23 -0700
>From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: VAMPIRES
>
>I read yesterday in SKIP PRESS's screenwriting book that "VAMPIRES" is
>the most common topic in film, look it up at IMDB and see how many
>citations it has
> >>
> >> i'm planning to do my dissertation in following area of conflict:
> >> urban =
> >> vampirical identities in film (probably rather postmodern in
> >> approach), =
> >> their manifestation of sexuality, desire and love (??). i wonder if
> >> any =
> >> of you could help me with some recommendations of literature (also
in
> >> a =
> >> broader philosophical sense) and movies on this topic.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:27:38 -0700
>From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: THE BIG PARADE
>
>THE BIG PARADE in intersting because as a early film it is not
>contaminated by by all the media distraction in film. The woman trying
>to hold on to her lover as he is carted away in the platoon truck is
>touching, frightening and real.
>
>One thing to remember about WW1 is that most of the dead Amerian
>Soldiers never fired their gun as it was foreign to them to kill
>another human being, WW2 began to train soldiers as killers and then
>failer to deprogram them
>
>
>On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Automatic digest processor
>wrote:
>
> > They Were Expendable
> > Pork Chop Hill
> > The Mountain Road
> > Verboten!
> > Steel Helmet
> > Major Dundee
> > The Big Parade
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:19:41 -0700
>From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: TALK TO HER
>
>CERTAINLY, the patients are comatose, but the point of the story for me
>and the caring nurse is that the patient is "no really comatose," for
>him, just in a state that allows him to interact in a most affection
>manner, including sexual intercourse...she wouldn't talk to him
>otherwise.
>
>I really like the colors of Almodovar and his messages
>
> > but Almodovar's HABLE CON ELLA is
> > the best comatose film I can think of. One of the best films I have
> > seen
> > this year.
> > Ross
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:38:19 -0700
>From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS
>
>Perhaps the USUAL SUSPECTS, AND RESERVOIR DOGS (AND POSSIBLY ANTHING BY
>TARINTINO WITH ALL HIS TWISTS
>I WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED WHEN JOHN TRAVOLTA SHOWS UP HAVE BEING DEAD
>
>HOW ABOUT
>THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE CHARLEY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Automatic digest processor
>wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:06:49 +0100
> > From: Volker Ferenz <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Unreliable Narrators in Film
> >
> > Dear Members
> >
> > I was wondering whether anyone knows some more films that use the
> > device of
> > the unreliable narrator, such as Detour (1946), The End of the
Affair
> > (1999), Fight Club (1999), Memento (2000), American Psycho (2000),
> > Spider
> > (2002), to name a few examples. What I am looking for is films with
a
> > strongly personalized narrator that is either ideologically or
> > morally "not" normal, or narrators that get the events wrong
(factual
> > unreliability).
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Volker Ferenz
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:24:28 +0100
>From: D J Morrey <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Unreliable narrators in film
>
>A late entry to the list of unreliable narrators/narrations:
>It occurs to me that Francois Ozon's recent Swimming Pool is trying to
>do something of this nature with the twist at the end, although my
first
>instinct is to say that this is an example of an uninteresting film
>trying to make itself interesting in the final reel.
>
>Douglas Morrey
>Lecturer in French
>School of Modern Languages
>University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
>Tel: +44 (0)191 2227489
>=20
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:05:26 -0400
>From: Ron T <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Psycho and Unreliable narration
>
>The subject of unreliable narration, as I understand it, should not be
>merely concerned with a simple twist that leads us to conclude that we
were
>misguided, or ooops, the narrative tricked us and we need now to
reconsider
>everything we had seen, "the
>spectator being duped by the narration into believing the
> > veracity of the narrative information." The unreliability of a
narrative
>does not have to be a trick, it can also be derived from the fact that
the
>narrative only gave us a limited picture of events and that we learn
more,
>perhapsd from another perspective, as in "Pulp Fiction," or "Go," where
we
>move from points of view to open up perspectives on the narrative that
were
>missing before. In other words, the concept of "unreliability" can take
many
>forms and should be considered not just in terms of a mere deception, a
>trick on the spectator, but also in terms of providing parts of a
puzzle so
>that we are finally provided a broader view of the situation. In "Pulp
>Fiction" for example, we learn only later that the two killers are in
the
>diner that is being robbed. The fact that we did not know that at the
>beginning makes us realize that certain information was missing,
rendering
>the initial facts "unreliable," in a different sense. Were we
"tricked"?
>Not in that sense because the initial facts are still true--the diner
is
>being robbed. But our view as we learn was limited and therefore
>"unreliable."
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Warren Buckland" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:17 PM
>Subject: Psycho and Unreliable narration
>
>
> > Mike Frank is right that Ron T has changed the focus of his
analysis, in
> > that his comments about the ending of Psycho do not bear on the
issue of
> > unreliable narration. The key to unreliable narration is that it
> > involves the spectator being duped by the narration into believing
the
> > veracity of the narrative information, and the canonic example is
the
> > lying flashback in Stage Fright. Unreliable narration therefore has
a
> > defeasible status - it jolts us into eventually revising the
narrative,
> > for we *retrospectively* realize that the narrative information
conveyed
> > by the narration is not true, and needs to be replaced. This does
not
> > apply to the end of Psycho. Where is the unreliability? Or the
> > retrospective revision? It is quite clear that the narration has
shifted
> > focus to Norman. Moreover, Ron T asks why doesn't the narrative
return
> > to Marion: it does - the film's final shot is the trunk of Marion's
car,
> > with her body inside.
> >
> > Warren Buckland
> > Associate Professor, Film Studies
> > Chapman University
> > School of Film and Television
> > One University Drive
> > Orange
> > CA 92866
> > USA.
> > phone: (714) 744 7018
> > fax: (714) 997 6700
> > Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies":
> > http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
> >
> >
> > >Yes, these are excellent distinctions between the character and the
> > narrative. However, after that long-winded Psychoanalytic
explanation
> > by the psychiatrist, the film ends with Norman/mother taking over
the
> > narrative, ending the whole story with the murderer's point of view,
> > inviting some conscientious spectator to wonder what Norman angle of
> > vision is on the whole matter. Why doesn't the film conclude with
the
> > psychiatrist's explanation, returning the viewer to a norma(l)world?
Why
> > does it attempt to reframe the entire narrative--all that has
> > happened--as something that has only happened to Norman? In other
words,
> > the film ends almost as if it were Norman's story, a story in which
> > Marian Crane and John Gavin and all the others didn't figure as very
> > significant. They were only significant to the viewer. Norman didn't
> > know Marian's story. So why does it all end as if it concluded
Norman's
> > story? That is a sense in which the narrative is deceptive, leading
us
> > to come to the conclusion that, perhaps rightly, that Norman Bates
is
> > the central character. We were deceived into believing that Marian
was
> > the central character, but after her death, no character can be
> > positioned in the center again. So does Norman take center stage?20
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:07:44 -0400
>From: Ron T <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS
>
>Well, that's an interesting point about Pulp Fiction, because Travolta
is
>dead. He is dead in the story itself but alive in the narrative.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Elizabeth Nolan" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:38 AM
>Subject: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS
>
>
> > Perhaps the USUAL SUSPECTS, AND RESERVOIR DOGS (AND POSSIBLY ANTHING
BY
> > TARINTINO WITH ALL HIS TWISTS
> > I WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED WHEN JOHN TRAVOLTA SHOWS UP HAVE BEING
DEAD
> >
> > HOW ABOUT
> > THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE CHARLEY
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Automatic digest
processor
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:06:49 +0100
> > > From: Volker Ferenz <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Unreliable Narrators in Film
> > >
> > > Dear Members
> > >
> > > I was wondering whether anyone knows some more films that use the
> > > device of
> > > the unreliable narrator, such as Detour (1946), The End of the
Affair
> > > (1999), Fight Club (1999), Memento (2000), American Psycho (2000),
> > > Spider
> > > (2002), to name a few examples. What I am looking for is films
with a
> > > strongly personalized narrator that is either ideologically or
> > > morally "not" normal, or narrators that get the events wrong
(factual
> > > unreliability).
> > >
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Thank you very much.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Volker Ferenz
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:20:31 -0400
>From: Ron T <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Unreliable narrators in film
>
>I think "Rashomon" has made its reputation on this issue--every
narrator,
>voice over, tells a lie and somehow all the lies ARE actually the
truth. We
>see how unreliable each perspective is--and that is the whole point of
the
>film--but in their unreliability all these points of view profer the
>philosophical point that there is no "reality." Reality is a fiction.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "D J Morrey" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:24 AM
>Subject: Unreliable narrators in film
>
>
>A late entry to the list of unreliable narrators/narrations:
>It occurs to me that Francois Ozon's recent Swimming Pool is trying to
>do something of this nature with the twist at the end, although my
first
>instinct is to say that this is an example of an uninteresting film
>trying to make itself interesting in the final reel.
>
>Douglas Morrey
>Lecturer in French
>School of Modern Languages
>University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
>Tel: +44 (0)191 2227489
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:37:03 -0700
>From: tanyavision <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Unreliable narrators in film
>
>as Fred Madison says in LOST HIGHWAY...
>"i like to remember things my own way... not necessarily how they
happened".
>although not narrated in voice-over, the film is often referred as a
>horror - 'NOIR'.
>i read the film from being from Fred's POV. we are inside his head.
>
>
> >every narrator,
> >voice over, tells a lie and somehow all the lies ARE actually the
truth. We
> >see how unreliable each perspective is--and that is the whole point
of the
> >film--but in their unreliability all these points of view profer the
> >philosophical point that there is no "reality." Reality is a fiction.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "D J Morrey" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:24 AM
> >Subject: Unreliable narrators in film
> >
> >
> >A late entry to the list of unreliable narrators/narrations:
> >It occurs to me that Francois Ozon's recent Swimming Pool is trying
to
> >do something of this nature with the twist at the end, although my
first
> >instinct is to say that this is an example of an uninteresting film
> >trying to make itself interesting in the final reel.
> >
> >Douglas Morrey
> >Lecturer in French
> >School of Modern Languages
> >University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
> >Tel: +44 (0)191 2227489
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:49:36 +0100
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: 7.27 Clarke on _Endless Night_
>
> >Was there a recent article on the work of Krystof Kieslovsky? I
think
> >I missed that issue and was wondering if you could send me a copy?
> >
> >Thanks -
> >Nancy Mockros
>
>
>When hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
>are replying to -- namely, do not leave old posts underneath your
>reply (but by all means quote lines you particularly want to refer
>to). This can greatly reduce download times, and makes emails (esp.
>digest ones) much easier and faster to read.
>
>Later this month there will be two review-articles on Slavoj Zizek's
>_The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieslowski between Theory and
>Post-Theory_:
>
>Richard Stamp, 'Our Friend Zizek'
>
>John Orr, 'Right Direction, Wrong Turning'
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:07:47 -0400
>From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS
>
>This is a multipart message in MIME format.
>--=_alternative 0048253485256DA3_=
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >> how about THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE
>CHARLEY
>
>THE THIRD MAN is a very interesting case, akin to malick, in that the
>voice over narrator
>[and please, PLEASE, let's not confuse a voice over narrator with the
>narration of
>the film itself] gets the facts right but seems to have an inadequate
way
>of making
>sense of them . . .holly is a first cousin to linda in DAYS OF HEAVEN .
.
>. but i can't
>imagine what would make SHADOW OF A DOUBT count as an example of
>unreliable narrative
>
>mike
>--=_alternative 0048253485256DA3_=
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
><br><font size=2><tt>>> how about THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH
>JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE CHARLEY</tt></font>
><br>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">THE THIRD MAN
is
>a very interesting case, akin to malick, in that the voice over
narrator</font>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">[and please,
>PLEASE, let's not confuse a voice over narrator with the narration
of</font>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">the film
itself]
>gets the facts right but seems to have an inadequate way of
making</font>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">sense of them
.
>. .holly is a first cousin to linda in DAYS OF HEAVEN . . . but i
can't</font>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">imagine what
>would make SHADOW OF A DOUBT count as an example of </font>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">unreliable
>narrative</font>
><br>
><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">mike</font>
>--=_alternative 0048253485256DA3_=--
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 15 Sep 2003 to 16 Sep 2003 (#2003-283)
>**********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:30:18 -0700
From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: narrator
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Automatic digest
processor wrote:
> and please, PLEASE, let's not confuse a voice over narrator with the
> narration of the film itself
Thanks for clearing that distinction.
I guess I mis-remembered SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:38:11 -0700
From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Mis-remembering films
It is interesting how films can be mis-remembered.
I'm an ER MD by training, and last year at the AUSTIN FF responded to
"Is there a doctor...?" I found a man whose head was in pool of blood
flat on the sidewalk outside the theater , and I mean a pool of blood
as this fellow was on coumadin, a blood thinner than can make you blood
as fluid as water.
(He did fine, but for a moment I was worried about a sniper as that was
a lot of blood for a fall and I thought at first an artery must have
been severed from a bullet as it was the same time as the Washington
area sniper events).
The point is that the image was in my head when I saw THE HOURS which
includes the suicide scene with ED Harris hurling himself out the
window...well in my mind, I image him on the ground in a pool of blood,
that same image I saw for real in Austin. Is is easy to mis-remember
films, even on a visual level with all the other info in our heads.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:43:16 EDT
From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: The Big Parade
--part1_14c.240376f8.2c98a5b4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I haven't seen The Big Parade since it screened at the National Film
Theatre
in London in 1979, but Elizabeth's recollection makes me want to see it
again!
What you say about American soldiers in WW1 is very interesting. Where
did
you read this? It would certainly explain Alvin York's reticence about
firing a
gun. Were religious misgivings common among doughboys? Or, rather, were
they
recruited significantly from sects likely to have such misgivings?
What you say about WWII makes the Malick film all the more moving. It
crossed
my mind recently that there is a moment in The Thin Red Line in which a
young
solider reaches for a butterfly on a blade of grass. An obvious allusion
to
All Quiet on the Western Front.
Don't know how relevant that was!
Richard
--part1_14c.240376f8.2c98a5b4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">I haven't seen The Big Parade since it screened at
the=
National Film Theatre in London in 1979, but Elizabeth's recollection
makes=
me want to see it again! <BR>
<BR>
What you say about American soldiers in WW1 is very interesting. Where
did y=
ou read this? It would certainly explain Alvin York's reticence about
firing=
a gun. Were religious misgivings common among doughboys? Or, rather,
were t=
hey recruited significantly from sects likely to have such
misgivings?<BR>
<BR>
What you say about WWII makes the Malick film all the more moving. It
crosse=
d my mind recently that there is a moment in The Thin Red Line in which
a yo=
ung solider reaches for a butterfly on a blade of grass. An obvious
allusion=
to All Quiet on the Western Front.<BR>
<BR>
Don't know how relevant that was!<BR>
Richard </FONT></HTML>
--part1_14c.240376f8.2c98a5b4_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:29:28 -0700
From: Warren Buckland <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Confusing restricted with unreliable narration
Ron T writes that
"The unreliability of a narrative does not have to be a trick, it can
also be derived from the fact that the narrative only gave us a limited
picture of events and that we learn more, perhapsd from another
perspective, as in "Pulp Fiction," or "Go," where we move from points of
view to open up perspectives on the narrative that were missing before."
But this is called restricted narration, not unreliable narration.
'Unreliable narration' is a subset of 'restricted narration', one that
involves deception. If Ron T used the term 'restricted' rather than
'unreliable' in his post, then he would be correct. But as it stands he
is substituting a subset (unreliable narration) for the whole set
(restricted narration).
Warren Buckland
Associate Professor, Film Studies
Chapman University
School of Film and Television
One University Drive
Orange
CA 92866
USA.
phone: (714) 744 7018
fax: (714) 997 6700
Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies":
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:25:50 -0400
From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: restricted vs. unreliable narration
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0075BE5185256DA3_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>"The unreliability of a narrative does not have to be a trick, it can
>also be derived from the fact that the narrative only gave us a limited
>picture of events and that we learn more, perhaps from another
>perspective, as in "Pulp Fiction," or "Go," where we move from points
of
>view to open up perspectives on the narrative that were missing
before."
>
>But this is called restricted narration, not unreliable narration.
>'Unreliable narration' is a subset of 'restricted narration', one that
>involves deception. If Ron T used the term 'restricted' rather than
>'unreliable' in his post, then he would be correct. But as it stands he
>is substituting a subset (unreliable narration) for the whole set
>(restricted narration).
hmmmm . . . this is getting VERY interesting, and making me
revisit issues i hadn't thought about for a while . . . while i
absolutely agree with warren's important point i wonder
how we would classify a narration that misleads the audience
because it comes from the restricted p.o.v. of a character
. . . would that count as unreliable narration, or would we
have to posit an intention to mislead in order for the results
to count as truly unreliable??
and [to turn the screw a touch more] if a film gives us the
honest but restricted and thus mistaken view of a character,
without cluing us that the view is mistaken, do we classify it
as [merely] restricted because the character intended no
deception, or do we classify it as unreliable because the film
itself did [it seems] intend to deceive??
need to come up with some example to help anchor the
questions
mike
PS-- i'm going to forward this memo to the "NARRATIVE"
list-serv, for this kind of thing is their stock in trade
--=_alternative 0075BE5185256DA3_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<br><font size=2><tt>>"The unreliability of a narrative does not
have to be a trick, it can<br>
>also be derived from the fact that the narrative only gave us a
limited<br>
>picture of events and that we learn more, perhaps from another<br>
>perspective, as in "Pulp Fiction," or "Go,"
where we move from points of<br>
>view to open up perspectives on the narrative that were missing
before."<br>
><br>
>But this is called restricted narration, not unreliable
narration.<br>
>'Unreliable narration' is a subset of 'restricted narration', one
that<br>
>involves deception. If Ron T used the term 'restricted' rather
than<br>
>'unreliable' in his post, then he would be correct. But as it stands
he<br>
>is substituting a subset (unreliable narration) for the whole
set<br>
>(restricted narration).</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">hmmmm . . . this is
getting VERY interesting, and making me</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">revisit issues i
hadn't thought about for a while . . . while i</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">absolutely agree
with warren's important point i wonder </font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">how we would
classify a narration that misleads the audience</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">because it comes
from the restricted p.o.v. of a character</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">. . . would that
count as unreliable narration, or would we</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">have to posit an
intention to mislead in order for the results</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">to count as truly
unreliable??</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">and [to turn the
screw a touch more] if a film gives us the</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">honest but
restricted and thus mistaken view of a character,</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">without cluing us
that the view is mistaken, do we classify it</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">as [merely]
restricted because the character intended no</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">deception, or do we
classify it as unreliable because the film</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">itself did [it
seems] intend to deceive??</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">need to come up
with some example to help anchor the</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">questions</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">mike</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">PS-- i'm going to
forward this memo to the "NARRATIVE"</font>
<br><font size=2 color=#6000a1 face="Century Gothic">list-serv, for this
kind of thing is their stock in trade</font>
--=_alternative 0075BE5185256DA3_=--
------------------------------
End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 16 Sep 2003 - Special issue (#2003-284)
***********************************************************************
|
