You're begging the question, Haim. What exactly do you mean by 'a
system of abstraction'?
H
Am 31.03.2007 um 14:59 schrieb Haim Callev:
> Warren Buckland wrote:
>
>> .... it was Metz who cleared up the confusion created by=20
>> the previous generation of film theorists.>
>> Metz called his early collection *Essais sur la signification au=20
>> cinema*, and it was the English translator who imposed the title
>> *Film=20
>> Language*.
>
> The original French title of the collection cannot absolve Metz
> from the "guilt" of throwing film theory into irrelevant issues,
> coming from a search for a direct resemblance between patterns of
> film articulation and linguistics. A simple illustration of such
> irrelevant issues is his wondering whether a shot is the equivalent
> of a word or a sentence, whether a gun of the screen means "a gun"
> or "here is a gun" ("un pistolet" ou "voici un pistolet"), instead
> of comprehending that the cinematographic reproduction of an object
> has no meaning other than being such reproduction, which acquires
> significance only according to its placement along other images on
> the screen, in a dynamic flow that produces meaning, within a
> system of abstraction, which is very far from language and
> linguistics.
>
> Haim
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Buckland"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:42 PM
> Subject: film language
>
>
>> Haim Callev wrote
>>
>> avoid the metaphorical connection to verbal language and sever
>> once and=20
>> for all the confusion introduced by the allegorical simplistic=20
>> connections between the two and repair the damage caused to film
>> theory=20
>> by Metz and other practitioners of the term.
>>
>> Haim =E2=80=93 this is a false problem. As I pointed out in my
>> Wednesday pos=
>> t=20
>> (reproduced below), it was Metz who cleared up the confusion
>> created by=20
>> the previous generation of film theorists.
>>
>> Metz called his early collection *Essais sur la signification au=20
>> cinema*, and it was the English translator who imposed the title
>> *Film=20
>> Language*.
>>
>>
>>
>> Post from Wednesday
>> For the record, the semioticians' analysis of film is not premised
>> on=20
>> identifying any direct resemblance between film and natural
>> language.=20
>> Only pre-semiotic scholars such as Raymond Spottiswoode made that=20
>> category mistake. Instead, film semioticians simply borrowed
>> methods=20
>> from linguistics to analyse their non-linguistic medium - in fact,
>> to=20
>> define its 'specificity', to bring the discussion around to the
>> debate=20
>> on what is filmic/cinematic?
>>
>> Warren Buckland
>>
>> Latest book: "Directed by Steven Spielberg:
>> Poetics of the Contemporary Hollywood Blockbuster"
>>
>> Editor, New Review of Film and Television Studies:
>> http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
>
> *
> *
> 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.
**
|