> (2) This relates to my last message of how to define
> non-linearity. Is it terms of the narration by a meta
> narrator, or is it terms of the narration by a
> diegetic character? In terms of the latter, a normal
> flashback would represent a "real time" memory taking
> place in the character's imagination, so it could be
> seen as linear. If you consider cause-and-effect over
> chronology then you are right with ACA. However, in
> this sense a film like Memento would be non-linear, as
> it presents us the effects before the causes. Yet, I
> think Memento is fairly linear, even if reversed.
I agree that flashbacks don't disrupt the linearity of a film--indeed, once
such flashbacks are over and we return to "the present", we often see that
some time has gone past while the character has been daydreaming. Even in
films where the past and the present seem to have equal footing and seem to
be able to "contaminate" each other, like Hiroshima mon Amour, there is
never a question of which came first.
The question of linearity seems to hinge on whether we are talking about the
film's narrative organization or the inner chronology of the film's
*events*. (As Steve pointed out, narratives seem to require some linearity
to be narratives--a beginning, middle, and end.) If being organized into a
traditional (another word that needs defining) narrative makes a film
linear, then there are many films which can be called non-linear indeed,
including Memento and Lola Rennt, but also Short Cuts, the Royal Tenenbaums,
Jackie Brown (in the latter, a single scene is repeated three times from 3
different points of view).
However, if the definition of linearity is expanded to include
non-chronological depictions of chronological events, then those films are
indeed linear. Perhaps what is needed besides a binary of
linearity/non-linearity is a spectrum of differing types or "levels" of
linear displacement. Could we distinguish between:
- Films in which the chronology of the film essentially mirrors the
chronology of the film's events - i.e. Birth of a Nation, Snow White and the
Seven Dwarves, the first two acts of 2001: A Space Odyssey
- Films in which the film's events are chronological, but their organization
differs markedly and deliberately from the film itself, which is non-linear:
Hiroshima Mon Amour, Memento, Irreversible, Vertigo (sometimes this is due
to a character experiencing time "wrong", as in Memento, and sometimes it's
just the narrative that is "wrong" apart from the characters' consciousness
of time, as in Irreversible)
- Films in which the rules of time are deconstructed (non-linear), but new
"rules" of time are substituted and followed exactly - La Jetee, Sliding
Doors, Total Recall, the last act of 2001: A Space Odyssey (Jupiter and
Saturn)
- Films that are non-narrative but in which the rules of time apply - most
non-fiction films
Films in which the inner chronology of the film is itself not cohesive, not
following the rules of time but not seeming to substitute any hard,
science-fiction-type rules in its place: Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Un
Chien Andalou, The Tulse Luper Suitcases (maybe), Jodorowsky's The Holy
Mountain
- Films in which time does not register in any meaningful way - Brakhage's
Dog Star Man or Wedlock House: An Intercourse, Ballet Mechanique
If we use the second def'n of linearity, then only the last two groups of
films can be truly non-linear.
Anyone have any thoughts on/rejections of this scheme? I know it doesn't
take into account Deleuze or other revisions of cinematic time that I'm not
familiar enough with to discuss without risking general derision, so maybe
someone could insert their wisdom.
SB.
*
*
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.
**
|