 |
 |
Anthony, Could you please expand on this. I'm not sure I understand what your saying. Are you taking issue with the nature of film studies, the way students are taught or are you saying that the reaction that takes place when one views a film is not illusion, but a set of scientific principles that can be measured, explained? >2) Of course, neither of the above are satisfactory theories of how >individual images achieve motion, for they both hinge on the notion that >cinematographic motion is illusory. Why should we characterize it this >way? The very idea of illusion (with respect to filmmaking) is a 19th >century one; and I have found that students of film design are always >puzzled by the observation that their medium rests upon a >physiological/psychological trick. Films certainly don't appear >illusory, yet every textbook on film begins with a chapter on the basic >trickery of film viewing. Strange, I should think... Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%