Happily Carroll does not enter into the debate about whether the
images really move in film. Some think that they do. (See Gregory
Currie's essay "Film, Reality, and Illusion," in Post-Theory, eds.
Bordwell and Carroll, p. 335.) Carroll's condition merely specifies
that the movie be of "the class of things from which the impression of
movement is technically possible." Sorry, I omitted this subtlety.
Carroll's precise definition, as presented in "Defining the Moving
Image" is as follows:
"x is a moving image (1) only if x is a detached display, (2) only if
x belongs to the class of things from which the impression of movement
is technically possible, (3) only if performance tokens of x are
generated by a template that is a token, and (4) only if performance
tokens of x are no artworks in their own right" (p.70).
A slide is far different from a movie. A slide does not belong to the
class of things from which the impression of movement is technically
possible. In order to give the impression of movement, as you noted,
you have to display lots of images in sequence very quickly. If you
could do this with a bunch of slide projectors, you would have
functionally implemented a movie projector. Hence, you'd have a moive
on your hands. If not, you've got a slide show.
If you know that you are watching a slide show or looking at a
painting, it's irrational to anticipate movement. This is not so with
a movie. We are perfectly rational to anticipate (the impression of )
movement when we first come to a movie.
Further, it makes sense to ask why a filmmaker, such as Marker, used
so little movement in "La Jetee", but it doesn't make sense to ask
this about Goya's (or whoever actually painted) "Colossus". Goya
didn't impart the impression of movement, because you can't do that in
the class of things that include these kinds of paintings. You can
suggest movement, but you can give the impression of movement. (If
you embed a monitor inside a painting, then I guess you've got a
hybrid artform. . . . )
Cheers,
Aaron
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Chris Gooch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Therefore the possibility of movement is not strictly correct, as a sequence
> of images does move when projected, regardless of if the audience are able
> to register this movement from frame to frame quickly enough or not.
*
*
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]
**
|