Carlmelo,
'your letter has sparked a response... which is the idea of
relationships between director, film, actor, time and money.'
your response put a clarifying surface to what I thought I meant. You
pointed my question to the relationships of production specific to
film, which is indeed where - looking at my text now - it goes as well.
But I think that a precise point just got dealt with as surpassed:
where does the /persona/ lies in film?
Indeed what is *responsible* (both financially and not) in the process
of making a film is a defining part. But may be, in the definition of
the critique, playing negatively a part; what does responsibility
continuously *disconsiders* that can construct again a rhetorically
effecting part of the film discourse(I believe that this is a clearer
way to put my question). And, to state it more plainly: what the
directive responsability is supposed to desconsider especially when it
is thought in it's financial frame by the critique posture. I am
talking about intention of production towards the possible reception,
and how the pretended intention by the receptor displaces the reception
of the narrative. In fact, the form this intention is considered forms
the narrative to the reception. How the critique constructs itself upon
this displacement as it where a conditioning principle that troubles
the narrative construction.
To be concise: the 'second person' problem is already stated, is
already structural. It is always what *you* are seeing. But in the
narrative structuring - in the very concept of narrative - there is the
director, author. That is where critique arises; what is the
displacement, of the already *in second person* camera and the
director, in the narrative, and what forms it?
eduardo
*
*
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.
**
|