Exactly, in preserving the spatio-temporal dimensions of quotidien
experience it is both more subtle and more realistic.
See also the marriage ceremony at the end of The Best Years of Our Lives.
Richard
On Tue, January 25, 2011 13:54, Frank, Michael wrote:
> everything said so far seems to me right on target, but it leaves out one
> characteristic of staging in deep space that i think may have been
> overlooked, or maybe just so taken for granted that it's not been
> articulated . . . note, for example, that henry taylor, discussing one
> scene in *Best Years of Our Lives* says that it's "poignant moment which
> could not have achieved quite the same effect if the scene had been
> divided up into separate shots." . . . but he doesn't explain WHY
> presenting this material via editing would be less poignant . . . and
> this is a question that i think andre bazin addresses . . . the argument
> is that when the scene is staged in deep space [using deep focus
> cinematography] it replicates real human perception in which the viewer
> has to search out the salient details of a mise-en-scene, and avoids the
> excessive rhetorical push - the elbow in the ribs , as it were - of the
> director saying, "hey, notice this" - - - and that when that directorial
> intrusion on our discovery of meaning is avoided, the result is - let's
> say - better
>
>
>
> of course one might argue both with the this analysis of how perception
> itself works and -- even if one agrees with that analysis -- with the
> claim that this kind of perception has such advantages as [in this case]
> increasing poignancy . . . but on the face of it the claim seems
> compelling
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Haukur Már Helgason
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] Depth of field - the very elementary
> question
>
>
>
> Thank you all. That's pretty much what I already had in mind, though I
>
>
> look forward to looking at the Renoir tipped above. Simply because of
>
> its frequent mentioning, and the repeated emphasis on the significance
>
> of the employment of deep focus, I feared I had missed out on
>
> something more ... I don't know what even. More elaborate in some way.
>
> Of course Deleuze conceptualizes it further, as I guess more others
>
>
> do, but I'm relieved to realize that in terms of the elementary 'thing
>
> itself' - if such a phrase can be applied to anything cinematic - it's
>
> just that. More information crammed in less time, and ways to exploit
>
> that possibility. But please keep on posting if you want to correct
>
> that phrasing or add anything to it.
>
>
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Doug vanderHoof <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Mavens,
>>
>
>> Without checking any references at the moment, I have the clear memory
>> of
>
>> reading that Welles also used what may have been a new toy, the split
>> focus
>
>> lens. There's a half of the lens that has a certain focus distance and
>> the
>
>> other half focuses at a different distance. You disguise the line
>> through
>
>> the middle of the image by placing it on a line in the composition or
>> some
>
>> other way so it's not noticeable.
>
>>
>
>> Does this ring a bell with anyone a little more steeped in tech?
>>
>
>>
>
>> Cordially,
>>
>
>>
>
>> Doug
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Cordially,
>>
>
>> Doug
>>
>
>>
>
>> Doug vanderHoof
>>
>
>> Producer, modern media
>>
>
>> 773-394-0029
>>
>
>> Bucktown, Chicago+Seattle
>>
>
>>
>
>> Litigation media: http://Modern-media.com
>>
>
>> Production portfolio: DougvanderHoof.com
>>
>
>>
>
>> Skype: dvanderhoof
>>
>
>> Personal blog: Tellingdetails.blogspot.com
>>
>
>>
>
>> --
>>
>
>> Film-Philosophy
>>
>
>> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
>>
>
>> --
>>
>
>> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
>>
>
>> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011):
>>
>
>> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
>>
>
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>> --
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Film-Philosophy
>
>
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
>
>
> --
>
>
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
>
>
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
>
>
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011):
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>
--
Film-Philosophy
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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
--
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
Contact: [log in to unmask]
--
|