Ross,
I think you hit on a very key term, in your analysis of the function of 'dog'
by calling attention to the polyvalence of the image in narrative. I have
often borrowed Paul Valery's term "omnivalence" to describe the use of the
image in a cinema which is not "inveterately narrative", i.e. an entirely poetic
cinema. a cinema which relates to the screen more in the way that the abstract
impressionist painters related to the canvas, or at least borrowing some of
the ideas of some of the poetics involved. If you look at the screen as a
window, then perhaps film and tv are inveterately narrative. If you look at the
screen as a surface, that's a different (not) story.
Thanks.
I was also most interested in Peter Ruppert's review of the Graf book on
Wenders, who I've always found to be, along with Peter Greenaway one of the most
interesting viewers of consciousness thru cinema. Wenders and Greenaway,
however, never got nearly as close as Brakhage in terms of exploring "unmediated
vision".
HENCE: The two aspects of cinema which do not seem to get discussed in this
list, and which are at the very bottom of the whole deal, are persistence of
vision and the phi phenomenon. They are the key to a "cinema of
consciousness".
Dan
*
*
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.
**
|