This seems to be an interesting thread, and I would like to add some
thoughts.
First of all, I would like to ask how the question about 'grain'
contributes to our knowledge about films?
>Firstly, of course we have the movement of the film through the projector.
Look back at the projection booth and perceive the gesture of the projector
as it literally 'throws' light at the screen. The gesture of 'throwing',
however is not as imprecise an action as it might at first appear, for what
is thrown (light) lands within a rectangular frame. This gesture is what
rexults in that 'first moment' that you mentioned 'when the blank screen
comes to life'.
I'm affraid that this kind of 'discourse' is a sheer banality that adds
nothing to our understanding of the subject.
'Grain' here seems to be a metaphor for some quality of film image that is
essential for our understaning/perception/emotional response of a film or
to a film. Metaphors are, of course, perfectly legitimate in theoretical
discourse. But if we want to cover with it such different things as
'affect', quality of image, temporal dimension of cinema, then I'm not sure
what such concept can mean and how we could benefit from it.
Another thing is this _foetal_ position. I don't think that even Godard
spends all 90 minutes of a film in this _foetal_ position. I myself like to
change positions (this is not meant as a food for freudists): I assume this
_foetal_ position, then I stretch my legs, lean to one side or the other,
pull my legs under the seat... I think it is ridiculous to assume that
sitting 'with your knees up against the seat in front of you' adds some
deeper layer of significance to your film experience.
Boris Vidovic
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|