hello, hello
your letter has sparked a response... which is the
idea of relationships between director, film, actor,
time and money. there is no escape from the latter...
making a film is similar to raising a family or the
idea of marriage... and then, it becomes art, if your
lucky. if your lucky, your children will like you
instead of despise you. you cannot raise them to like
you or despise you... this relationship i find in
"alphaville..." godard has a unique gift to be close
and distant to his subjects... it's definitely more
modern than hiroshima..., yet classical... i don't
know... hope this was helpful...
-cb
--- Automatic digest processor
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There are 8 messages totalling 659 lines in this
> issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Hello - Persona
> 2. 2nd Person/360 degree pan (3)
> 3. representations of utopia (2)
> 4. Fwd: Re: representations of utopia/INDIGO
> 5. 8.7 Fenner on _The German Cinema Book_
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:27:50 -0300
> From: Eduardo <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Hello - Persona
>
> I'm new to the list, so I say hello.
>
> Then, I wanted to kindly ask if anyone know
> of a cinema study that
> analyses a film poetic /persona/ , in the same sense
> that the term is
> used in literary studies - passible of having
> rhetoric affections etc.
> I mean the question thinking of what is other than
> the rest of the
> narrative discourses that form what is called(not
> financially), a film;
> whatever that sets the structure of the narration
> juxtaposed and not
> implicated in 'written' narrator phrasing and
> 'wrote' character
> interactions. As the /persona/ can have dubious and
> contrafactive
> behavior, constructing a possible critical
> acknowledge that sets more
> context than there was considered to reside on the
> /aliquid/ that is
> marked as a film. For not to be too obscure, and as
> an example, I'm
> thinking precisely about _Hiroshima mon Amour_ and
> how the images and
> the text (I don't mean sound) interact as two
> separated series that
> form, after this interaction, on a third moment, the
> film criticizable
> sense - but never simultaneously as they occur. As
> opposed to Godard's
> Alphaville, for instance, where the images seems to
> double a support
> for most of the 'written' narrative propositions, in
> a sequence that
> is: explicit sense - image - affection(residue or
> mannerism), where
> simultaneity is an effect more than a medium(the
> inverse on _Hirosh._).
>
> But, any interesting studies on _Hirosh._ are
> references I would be
> pleased to know where to find. Especially if there
> is any on the
> internet (or transmissible through it) because
> getting european or
> north-american books here in Brazil is often a slow
> process.
>
> Thanks,
> Eduardo Cintra
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:25:19 +0000
> From: James Fiumara <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: 2nd Person/360 degree pan
>
> I think Gregg is correct that the closest cinematic
> analogue to the 2nd
> person address is "when the audience is addressed as
> 'you' while, at the
> same time, the visual track is clearly devoted to a
> POV shot." Something
> like this may occur in Fincher's _Fight Club_....
> can't think of any other
> possibilities off the top of my head.
>
> Direct address to the audience a al _Annie Hall_ is
> not the same thing at
> all. This is why film does (or at least should) have
> its own course of
> study separate from literature. You can't just cram
> a film peg into a
> literature hole; sometimes it fits, but many times
> it doesn't.
>
> -James
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:53:55 -0500
> From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: 2nd Person/360 degree pan
>
> This is a multipart message in MIME format.
> --=_alternative 007300D785256E40_=
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> when the
> audience is addressed as "you" while, at the same
> time, the visual track
> is
> clearly devoted to a POV shot. In that case, the
> voiceover must be read
> into
> the image, diverting it from some character's POV to
> a kind of second
> person.
> Any other form of direct address has really nothing
> to do with second
> person
> narration.
>
> this seems plausible, but again it anchors the
> second person address in
> spoken
> words, where we know it can exist . . . the crucial
> question at its core
> is, i think,
> whether there can be a second person image . . . any
> takers on that??
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
> --=_alternative 007300D785256E40_=
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> <br><font size=2><tt>when the<br>
> audience is addressed as "you" while, at
> the same time, the visual track is<br>
> clearly devoted to a POV shot. In that case, the
> voiceover must be read into<br>
> the image, diverting it from some character's POV to
> a kind of second person.<br>
> Any other form of direct address has really nothing
> to do with second person<br>
> narration.</tt></font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">this seems
> plausible, but again it anchors the second person
> address in spoken</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">words, where we
> know it can exist . . . the crucial question at its
> core is, i think,</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">whether there can
> be a </font><font size=3
> face="sans-serif"><b><i>second
=== message truncated ===
*
*
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.
**
|
