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
|