Daniel Barnett wrote:
< I think it's easily possible to construct a descriptive framework wherein
the
> same terms, used for film and for language would be very (maybe
> equivalently)
> illuminating about the meaning potentials for each - and which would
> create
> more clarity than confusion (if barely and only in certain minds.)
> dan
What do you think of the possibility to give the specific system of
articulation employed in the film medium a proper name and call it let's say
"CINEMATIC EXRPESSION ", rather than "FILM LANGUAGE". Thus avoid the
metaphorical connection to verbal language and sever once and for all the
confusion introduced by the allegorical simplistic connections between the
two and repair the damage caused to film theory by Metz and other
practitioners of the term.
Haim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Barnett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 8:53 AM
Subject: film mother tongue
> --part1_d03.c5d06e4.333dffc0_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> The abiliity to articulate pictures so fast that they become the
> fundamental units of a speech-speed referential system is a fundamental
> but totally
> ignored aspect of cinema. (Witness: A.K Dewdney's _Maltese Cross Movement_
> or Saul
> Levine's _The Big stick_ among many others)
>
> If you think of it this way, does it make more sense to call it a
> language?
>
> I agree with Mike that language is more or less metaphorical most of the
> time. I don't know if he'd say this, but I think rules, when it comes to
> talk
> about language, are purely post facto concoctions.
>
> Surely, language can be considered a subset of code fruitfully, and vice
> versa. Both views have light to shine on the subject.
>
> I feel that dragging the aparatus of a metaphor inescapably along with the
> metaphor is the result of sloppy thinking; at least if you can think of
> large
> scale metaphors as heuristic devices, and understand when their turf has
> been
> exceeded. Otherwise we condemn something that is, after all, an art - and
> beyond
> the critiques of pure reason, to the slate grey of the sterile and simply
> precise.
> I think it's easily possible to construct a descriptive framework wherein
> the
> same terms, used for film and for language would be very (maybe
> equivalently)
> illuminating about the meaning potentials for each - and which would
> create
> more clarity than confusion (if barely and only in certain minds.)
> dan
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> --part1_d03.c5d06e4.333dffc0_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000"
> FACE=3D"Gen=
> eva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"><BR>
> The abiliity to articulate pictures so fast that they become the
> fund=
> amental units of a speech-speed referential system is a fundamental but
> tota=
> lly ignored aspect of cinema. (Witness: A.K Dewdney's _Maltese Cross
> Movemen=
> t_ or Saul Levine's _The Big stick_ among many others)<BR>
> <BR>
> If you think of it this way, does it make more sense to call it a
> language?<=
> BR>
> <BR>
> I agree with Mike that language is more or less metaphorical most of the
> tim=
> e. I don't know if he'd say this, but I think rules, when it comes to talk
> a=
> bout language, are purely post facto concoctions.<BR>
> <BR>
> Surely, language can be considered a subset of code fruitfully, and vice
> ver=
> sa. Both views have light to shine on the subject.<BR>
> <BR>
> I feel that dragging the aparatus of a metaphor inescapably along with the
> m=
> etaphor is the result of sloppy thinking; at least if you can think of
> large=
> scale metaphors as heuristic devices, and understand when their turf has
> be=
> en exceeded. Otherwise we condemn something that is, after all, an art -
> and=
> beyond the critiques of pure reason, to the slate grey of the sterile and
> s=
> imply precise.<BR>
> I think it's easily possible to construct a descriptive framework wherein
> th=
> e same terms, used for film and for language would be very (maybe
> equivalent=
> ly) illuminating about the meaning potentials for each - and which would
> cre=
> ate more clarity than confusion (if barely and only in certain minds.)<BR>
> dan<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT:
> 5px;=20=
> MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE=3D"CITE"></FONT><FONT
> COLOR=3D"#0=
> 00000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"><BR>
> </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva"
> FAMILY=3D"SANSSE=
> RIF" SIZE=3D"2"><BR>
> <BR>
> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"
> SIZE=3D"=
> 2"></FONT><BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See
> what's=20=
> free at http://www.aol.com.</HTML>
> *
> *
> 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.
> **
>
> --part1_d03.c5d06e4.333dffc0_boundary--
*
*
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.
**
|