Funny - I like the idea 'trains are great locations for murder' in a cinematic sense, but otherwise I agree Mike: to suggest that trains are *always* symbols of modernity seems as absurd. They're likely to be used metaphorically (La Bete humaine, Night Mail), or even metonymically (Ciotat, The Lady Vanishes) but 'symbol' suggests that the subject of modernity is always being consciously invoked and discussed, and that the train's meaning is fundamental or essential.
I think we' have a hard time proving the latter.
Damian
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Frank [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Mon 17/05/2004 16:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Trains as the symbol of modernity
>>but when trains are viewed within a particular historical context, namely the emergence of cinema, the train has a >>very specific meaning: the symbol of modernity par excellence.
maybe, but i wonder . . . are trains always a symbol of modernity in the cases
in which hitchcock uses them, vehicles [of all kinds, from lifeboats to horses]
being a favored way of his to stage a scene?
to say that a train is, automatically, a SYMBOL of modernity is all films regardless
of what the film is doing or how it's working [as opposed to being an INDEX of
modernity which it obviously cannot help being] is to appropriate the idea of a
literary or cinematic symbol in a most peculiar way
mike
-- * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **
|