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)
>**********************************************************************
|
