I think your example of the novel here is very elucidating, Michael - it is 
exactly what I was getting at. Bernd and Henry were (perhaps unwittingly?)  
looking toward an important broader philosophical terrain that underlies 
Bordwell, in my opinion. As I read it Bernd is having a little trouble keeping the 
boundaries in place and is thinking of casting a wider net and Henry is 
considering technology and populist cynicism as significant parts of the 
equation. 

In spite of your insistence, I have no intention of remembering that 
Kierkegaard's point "simply does not apply in the universe of narrative fiction". 
I respectfully disagree. If what you say were true, then why would any 
filmmaker (or novelist) actively pursue this narrative strategy? [Studlar might 
be interesting here?] I believe our relationships (rhetorical and other) to truth 
are an important part of assessing narrative reliability and a significant 
catalyst in both the creation and consumption of unreliability in its many 
narrative guises.

A film like Josh Safdie's "The Pleasure of Being Robbed" is a perfect example. 
The lead character is, well.. not a reliable woman, but the filmmaker makes her 
so adorable you actually reach a point where you are compelled to make a 
conscious choice to throw your own spectatorship out the window. You 
cannot really follow, understand or sometimes even see (the focus is thrown 
off at times and the framing has moments of extreme exclusion) why the 
protagonist does what she does. However there is so much pleasure and 
beauty and humanity in Safdie's narrative that you become aware of the 
ineptness of your own narrative/textual operations; like that moment when 
you put down the chopsticks and realise it's ok to pick up the bowl and drink 
the soup.  
At the end of the film one can't help but wonder if the character just 
hoodwinked you or the filmmaker did. Is Eleanor so lovable that she deceives 
you into taking her side or does Safdie use every trick in the book to lure you 
into loving someone who otherwise should be institutionalised. The title truly 
says it all. In spite of the fact that this film presents itself as a standard 
cinematic narrative what we are robbed of is the sense of the narrative's truth 
and are forced to either manufacture it for ourselves or forego the desire to 
uncover it. Neither would be taking place without the subjective nature of 
truth or its interdependence on social values and normative ethics. At the 
heart of the Kierkegaard quote the question is not 'who do we trust?' but 'how 
do we trust?' 

Of paramount significance is Kierkegaard's methodology. The majority of his 
published works were psueudonymous works of fiction. The ideas were all 
tumbling around in books written by people who didn't exist, people claiming to 
have found the bulk of the work penned by a third party in the draw of second 
hand desk or in an attic or as collections of correspondence discovered under 
a dusty floorboard or the like. Similarly, in the contemporary American fiction 
of Ben Greenman and Ben Marcus one finds introductions, notes, interruptions, 
epilogues, letters, etc. from the authors' family members, past employers, 
school teachers. Is their status fiction? Are their narratives true? Do we trust 
them or are they unreliable narrators all? 'You be the judge' was Kierkegaard's 
answer.

sorry for the megareply,
brooke

ps: i emplore you not to take this the wrong way, m, but with all due respect i 
consider it somewhat discouraging to see everybody cautioned about 
contributing to the list. it's water off a duck's back to me and it is pure 
supposition on my part, but others who may have been lurking (for years in 
some cases - hi surbhi!) may feel disinclined to participate in whatever 
capacity. i feel it is important to stress that no matter how far afield another's 
mind may wander from a theoretical definition, their point of view is often 
more important than somebody else's pat on the back to the originary poster. 
sometimes a shape is only delimited by whatever stands at it edges. i thought 
your earlier point about slippage was constructive. I am unclear as to what we 
need to be careful of. what exactly is at stake here if someone gets 
something 'wrong' or uses one idea to connect to another? surely it is only 
ever a favourable opportunity to alleviate ambiguity or jst talk to each other - 
that is why we are here, no?. If I (or anyone else here) have misunderstood or 
missed a point altogether then I (they) will never know if we are warned 
against throwing our hats in the ring. someone's idea could be completely left 
of field and not something i would ever think of myself and we could all miss 
out if they lurk in fear. just my unsolicited (but hopefully not too unwelcome) 
opinion, no offense intended.

*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**