Boris,
In your message reproduced below, you are clearly mixing up Edward
Branigan’s earlier book _Point of View in the Cinema_ with his latest
book _Projecting a Camera_.
Whereas in _Point of View_ Branigan analyses the frame, editing,
camerawork, etc. in a series of films, in _Projecting a Camera_ he
analyses the use of WORDS and CONCEPTS such as 'frame' and 'camera' in
various conexts, using Wittgenstein’s language-games perspective.
So it is entirely appropriate to add 'language' (as in 'film language')
to this list of words and concepts, and subject it to a language-games
analysis – indeed, this is probably one of the most fruitful ways to
clarify the whole discussion concerning what multiple, contradictory
meanings are associated with the phrase 'film language'.
Warren is right to point out the difference between Spottiswoode and
Metz. But I must strongly oppose his willingness to add 'language' to
the list that includes "terms such as 'movement', 'point of view',
'camera', 'frame', and 'causality'". I'm sorry, but it is simply silly
to put 'camera' or 'point of view' at the same level as 'language'. And
I really don't see anything specifically "Wittgensteinian" in
Brannigan's analyses of certain concepcts concerning film practice
and/or theory - be it literal or metaphorical. I don't have Brannigan's
book at hand at the moment, but I don't even remember him mentioning
Wittgenstein.
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
=0
*
*
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.
**
|