Only answering to the last point rather than the original (which I
cannot immediately find and which of course is the very question
involved here) the 'liveness' one might call it is what might be at
stake, which flaws would seem to be a sort of guarantee of. Barthes'
point about the 'grain of the voice' seems to gaurantee a form of
'presence' or liveness; a sort of animalistic gaurantee that there is
some spirit involved (jouissance, takes us into violent animality rather
than the classical recognition of pattern). This of course is an
'ideology of presence', if one wishes to mix the Marxist and the
Derridean up a little, which uses say the synthesizer (or any other
example of 'writing' or non-present 'mechanicity') to differentiate
itself as living presence. The animalistic presence of the aparatus can
do nothing more than take its difference from what it believes to be
difference itself. It is not itself this difference, it believes. 

Perhaps this is why I love those Ed Wood films so much, because unlike
(and here I am living the ideology at a distance and I must underline
not naively 'living it') the perfection of the blockbuster (as
differance) makes the machine fully operational and gives not a peak of
the presence that trips itself up so continually in these films. There
is an aesthetic of the unfinished and the pathetic, if you will...

Tony Richards

-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Nigel Morris
Sent: 19 April 2006 20:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 18 Apr 2006 to 19 Apr 2006
(#2006-125)

I don't know about a theory of flaws, but I'm reminded of Barthes'
example of jouissance being what he calls the "grain" of a singer's
voice, and also of the fact that acoustic guitarists relish the squeak
of fingers on the strings. As for the example of boom microphones
appearing in shot, I often used to notice this as an avid Film Society
member in the 1970s. Rather than being a strictly textual phenomenon it
was the result of incorrect masking of the image during projection. For
the same reason it often occurred on television screenings of feature
films.

Nigel

*
*
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.
**

*
*
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.
**