 |
 |
At 06:00 PM 9/16/2003 +0100, you wrote: >There are 15 messages totalling 591 lines in this issue. > >Topics of the day: > > 1. Unreliable Narrators in Film > 2. Daisy Miller + Morern Callar > 3. Psycho and Unreliable narration (2) > 4. FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 10 Sep 2003 (#2003-273) comatose movies > 5. VAMPIRES > 6. THE BIG PARADE > 7. TALK TO HER > 8. UNRELIABLE NARRATORS (3) > 9. Unreliable narrators in film (3) > 10. 7.27 Clarke on _Endless Night_ > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:21:21 +0100 >From: Verene Lack-Grieshaber <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Unreliable Narrators in Film > >The film which springs most to mind is 'Mortelle Randonn=E9e', with Adjan= >i and >Serrault, where the narrator's voice (the Eye, played by Serrault, in thi= >s >case it is not only the voice that sometimes narrates, but the eyes/camer= >a >you see through) - and dislocation from both his and other's reality/ies = >- >are particularly strong, interesting in view of the recent (and very >peculiarly neutered) interpretation 'the eye of the beholder' with Ashley >Judd (probably the film's only saving grace) and the grossly miscast Ewan >Mac Gregor of the Marc Behm book of the same title (I would recommend the >book, it is not written in the first person though). > >However, if 'pure' French films (ie - no American remakes, etc) do then t= >ake >your fancy, there are plenty of unreliable narrators to get your teeth in= >, >and strangely enough (or maybe not), Adjani seems to have made herself a >niche in such films. > >V=E9r=E8ne > >-----Original Message----- >From: Volker Ferenz <[log in to unmask]> >To: Roland-Fran=E7ois Lack <[log in to unmask]> >Date: 14 September 2003 12:16 >Subject: Unreliable Narrators in Film > > > >Dear Members > > > >I was wondering whether anyone knows some more films that use the device= > of > >the unreliable narrator, such as Detour (1946), The End of the Affair > >(1999), Fight Club (1999), Memento (2000), American Psycho (2000), Spide= >r > >(2002), to name a few examples. What I am looking for is films with a > >strongly personalized narrator that is either ideologically or > >morally "not" normal, or narrators that get the events wrong (factual > >unreliability). > > > >Any ideas? > > > >Thank you very much. > > > >Regards, > > > >Volker Ferenz > > > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:16:30 +0000 >From: "R.W. Davis Jr" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Daisy Miller + Morern Callar > >I'm looking to find scripts for Daisy Miller (Frederic Raphael) and Morvern >Callar. I've searched the online script stores without luck. Any leads? >Thanks. > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:17:25 -0700 >From: Warren Buckland <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Psycho and Unreliable narration > >Mike Frank is right that Ron T has changed the focus of his analysis, in >that his comments about the ending of Psycho do not bear on the issue of >unreliable narration. The key to unreliable narration is that it >involves the spectator being duped by the narration into believing the >veracity of the narrative information, and the canonic example is the >lying flashback in Stage Fright. Unreliable narration therefore has a >defeasible status - it jolts us into eventually revising the narrative, >for we *retrospectively* realize that the narrative information conveyed >by the narration is not true, and needs to be replaced. This does not >apply to the end of Psycho. Where is the unreliability? Or the >retrospective revision? It is quite clear that the narration has shifted >focus to Norman. Moreover, Ron T asks why doesn't the narrative return >to Marion: it does - the film's final shot is the trunk of Marion's car, >with her body inside. > >Warren Buckland >Associate Professor, Film Studies >Chapman University >School of Film and Television >One University Drive >Orange >CA 92866 >USA. >phone: (714) 744 7018 >fax: (714) 997 6700 >Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies": >http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp > > > >Yes, these are excellent distinctions between the character and the >narrative. However, after that long-winded Psychoanalytic explanation >by the psychiatrist, the film ends with Norman/mother taking over the >narrative, ending the whole story with the murderer's point of view, >inviting some conscientious spectator to wonder what Norman angle of >vision is on the whole matter. Why doesn't the film conclude with the >psychiatrist's explanation, returning the viewer to a norma(l)world? Why >does it attempt to reframe the entire narrative--all that has >happened--as something that has only happened to Norman? In other words, >the film ends almost as if it were Norman's story, a story in which >Marian Crane and John Gavin and all the others didn't figure as very >significant. They were only significant to the viewer. Norman didn't >know Marian's story. So why does it all end as if it concluded Norman's >story? That is a sense in which the narrative is deceptive, leading us >to come to the conclusion that, perhaps rightly, that Norman Bates is >the central character. We were deceived into believing that Marian was >the central character, but after her death, no character can be >positioned in the center again. So does Norman take center stage?20 > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:10:57 -0700 >From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 10 Sep 2003 (#2003-273) comatose movies > >didn't get all the posts in AUG/SEP as I was away with a slow modem >connection and also had computer in the repair shop... >comatose films >I don't know the context of the topic but two films come to mind >reference HERZOG hypnotizing actors > > > >COME AND SEE >a 10 year old boy who was reportedly hypnotized for some war scenes > >THE TIN DRUM >also involving a young boy with whom the director stayed in life long >contact, apparently because of the effect playing the role had on the >child > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:16:23 -0700 >From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: VAMPIRES > >I read yesterday in SKIP PRESS's screenwriting book that "VAMPIRES" is >the most common topic in film, look it up at IMDB and see how many >citations it has > >> > >> i'm planning to do my dissertation in following area of conflict: > >> urban = > >> vampirical identities in film (probably rather postmodern in > >> approach), = > >> their manifestation of sexuality, desire and love (??). i wonder if > >> any = > >> of you could help me with some recommendations of literature (also in > >> a = > >> broader philosophical sense) and movies on this topic. > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:27:38 -0700 >From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: THE BIG PARADE > >THE BIG PARADE in intersting because as a early film it is not >contaminated by by all the media distraction in film. The woman trying >to hold on to her lover as he is carted away in the platoon truck is >touching, frightening and real. > >One thing to remember about WW1 is that most of the dead Amerian >Soldiers never fired their gun as it was foreign to them to kill >another human being, WW2 began to train soldiers as killers and then >failer to deprogram them > > >On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Automatic digest processor >wrote: > > > They Were Expendable > > Pork Chop Hill > > The Mountain Road > > Verboten! > > Steel Helmet > > Major Dundee > > The Big Parade > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:19:41 -0700 >From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: TALK TO HER > >CERTAINLY, the patients are comatose, but the point of the story for me >and the caring nurse is that the patient is "no really comatose," for >him, just in a state that allows him to interact in a most affection >manner, including sexual intercourse...she wouldn't talk to him >otherwise. > >I really like the colors of Almodovar and his messages > > > but Almodovar's HABLE CON ELLA is > > the best comatose film I can think of. One of the best films I have > > seen > > this year. > > Ross > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:38:19 -0700 >From: Elizabeth Nolan <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS > >Perhaps the USUAL SUSPECTS, AND RESERVOIR DOGS (AND POSSIBLY ANTHING BY >TARINTINO WITH ALL HIS TWISTS >I WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED WHEN JOHN TRAVOLTA SHOWS UP HAVE BEING DEAD > >HOW ABOUT >THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE CHARLEY > > > > > > >On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Automatic digest processor >wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:06:49 +0100 > > From: Volker Ferenz <[log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Unreliable Narrators in Film > > > > Dear Members > > > > I was wondering whether anyone knows some more films that use the > > device of > > the unreliable narrator, such as Detour (1946), The End of the Affair > > (1999), Fight Club (1999), Memento (2000), American Psycho (2000), > > Spider > > (2002), to name a few examples. What I am looking for is films with a > > strongly personalized narrator that is either ideologically or > > morally "not" normal, or narrators that get the events wrong (factual > > unreliability). > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Thank you very much. > > > > Regards, > > > > Volker Ferenz > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:24:28 +0100 >From: D J Morrey <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Unreliable narrators in film > >A late entry to the list of unreliable narrators/narrations: >It occurs to me that Francois Ozon's recent Swimming Pool is trying to >do something of this nature with the twist at the end, although my first >instinct is to say that this is an example of an uninteresting film >trying to make itself interesting in the final reel. > >Douglas Morrey >Lecturer in French >School of Modern Languages >University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU >Tel: +44 (0)191 2227489 >=20 > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:05:26 -0400 >From: Ron T <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Psycho and Unreliable narration > >The subject of unreliable narration, as I understand it, should not be >merely concerned with a simple twist that leads us to conclude that we were >misguided, or ooops, the narrative tricked us and we need now to reconsider >everything we had seen, "the >spectator being duped by the narration into believing the > > veracity of the narrative information." The unreliability of a narrative >does not have to be a trick, it can also be derived from the fact that the >narrative only gave us a limited picture of events and that we learn more, >perhapsd from another perspective, as in "Pulp Fiction," or "Go," where we >move from points of view to open up perspectives on the narrative that were >missing before. In other words, the concept of "unreliability" can take many >forms and should be considered not just in terms of a mere deception, a >trick on the spectator, but also in terms of providing parts of a puzzle so >that we are finally provided a broader view of the situation. In "Pulp >Fiction" for example, we learn only later that the two killers are in the >diner that is being robbed. The fact that we did not know that at the >beginning makes us realize that certain information was missing, rendering >the initial facts "unreliable," in a different sense. Were we "tricked"? >Not in that sense because the initial facts are still true--the diner is >being robbed. But our view as we learn was limited and therefore >"unreliable." > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Warren Buckland" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:17 PM >Subject: Psycho and Unreliable narration > > > > Mike Frank is right that Ron T has changed the focus of his analysis, in > > that his comments about the ending of Psycho do not bear on the issue of > > unreliable narration. The key to unreliable narration is that it > > involves the spectator being duped by the narration into believing the > > veracity of the narrative information, and the canonic example is the > > lying flashback in Stage Fright. Unreliable narration therefore has a > > defeasible status - it jolts us into eventually revising the narrative, > > for we *retrospectively* realize that the narrative information conveyed > > by the narration is not true, and needs to be replaced. This does not > > apply to the end of Psycho. Where is the unreliability? Or the > > retrospective revision? It is quite clear that the narration has shifted > > focus to Norman. Moreover, Ron T asks why doesn't the narrative return > > to Marion: it does - the film's final shot is the trunk of Marion's car, > > with her body inside. > > > > Warren Buckland > > Associate Professor, Film Studies > > Chapman University > > School of Film and Television > > One University Drive > > Orange > > CA 92866 > > USA. > > phone: (714) 744 7018 > > fax: (714) 997 6700 > > Editor, "New Review of Film and Television Studies": > > http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp > > > > > > >Yes, these are excellent distinctions between the character and the > > narrative. However, after that long-winded Psychoanalytic explanation > > by the psychiatrist, the film ends with Norman/mother taking over the > > narrative, ending the whole story with the murderer's point of view, > > inviting some conscientious spectator to wonder what Norman angle of > > vision is on the whole matter. Why doesn't the film conclude with the > > psychiatrist's explanation, returning the viewer to a norma(l)world? Why > > does it attempt to reframe the entire narrative--all that has > > happened--as something that has only happened to Norman? In other words, > > the film ends almost as if it were Norman's story, a story in which > > Marian Crane and John Gavin and all the others didn't figure as very > > significant. They were only significant to the viewer. Norman didn't > > know Marian's story. So why does it all end as if it concluded Norman's > > story? That is a sense in which the narrative is deceptive, leading us > > to come to the conclusion that, perhaps rightly, that Norman Bates is > > the central character. We were deceived into believing that Marian was > > the central character, but after her death, no character can be > > positioned in the center again. So does Norman take center stage?20 > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:07:44 -0400 >From: Ron T <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS > >Well, that's an interesting point about Pulp Fiction, because Travolta is >dead. He is dead in the story itself but alive in the narrative. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Elizabeth Nolan" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:38 AM >Subject: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS > > > > Perhaps the USUAL SUSPECTS, AND RESERVOIR DOGS (AND POSSIBLY ANTHING BY > > TARINTINO WITH ALL HIS TWISTS > > I WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED WHEN JOHN TRAVOLTA SHOWS UP HAVE BEING DEAD > > > > HOW ABOUT > > THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE CHARLEY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Automatic digest processor > > wrote: > > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:06:49 +0100 > > > From: Volker Ferenz <[log in to unmask]> > > > Subject: Unreliable Narrators in Film > > > > > > Dear Members > > > > > > I was wondering whether anyone knows some more films that use the > > > device of > > > the unreliable narrator, such as Detour (1946), The End of the Affair > > > (1999), Fight Club (1999), Memento (2000), American Psycho (2000), > > > Spider > > > (2002), to name a few examples. What I am looking for is films with a > > > strongly personalized narrator that is either ideologically or > > > morally "not" normal, or narrators that get the events wrong (factual > > > unreliability). > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > > > > Thank you very much. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Volker Ferenz > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 05:20:31 -0400 >From: Ron T <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Unreliable narrators in film > >I think "Rashomon" has made its reputation on this issue--every narrator, >voice over, tells a lie and somehow all the lies ARE actually the truth. We >see how unreliable each perspective is--and that is the whole point of the >film--but in their unreliability all these points of view profer the >philosophical point that there is no "reality." Reality is a fiction. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "D J Morrey" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:24 AM >Subject: Unreliable narrators in film > > >A late entry to the list of unreliable narrators/narrations: >It occurs to me that Francois Ozon's recent Swimming Pool is trying to >do something of this nature with the twist at the end, although my first >instinct is to say that this is an example of an uninteresting film >trying to make itself interesting in the final reel. > >Douglas Morrey >Lecturer in French >School of Modern Languages >University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU >Tel: +44 (0)191 2227489 > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:37:03 -0700 >From: tanyavision <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Unreliable narrators in film > >as Fred Madison says in LOST HIGHWAY... >"i like to remember things my own way... not necessarily how they happened". >although not narrated in voice-over, the film is often referred as a >horror - 'NOIR'. >i read the film from being from Fred's POV. we are inside his head. > > > >every narrator, > >voice over, tells a lie and somehow all the lies ARE actually the truth. We > >see how unreliable each perspective is--and that is the whole point of the > >film--but in their unreliability all these points of view profer the > >philosophical point that there is no "reality." Reality is a fiction. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "D J Morrey" <[log in to unmask]> > >To: <[log in to unmask]> > >Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:24 AM > >Subject: Unreliable narrators in film > > > > > >A late entry to the list of unreliable narrators/narrations: > >It occurs to me that Francois Ozon's recent Swimming Pool is trying to > >do something of this nature with the twist at the end, although my first > >instinct is to say that this is an example of an uninteresting film > >trying to make itself interesting in the final reel. > > > >Douglas Morrey > >Lecturer in French > >School of Modern Languages > >University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU > >Tel: +44 (0)191 2227489 > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:49:36 +0100 >From: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: 7.27 Clarke on _Endless Night_ > > >Was there a recent article on the work of Krystof Kieslovsky? I think > >I missed that issue and was wondering if you could send me a copy? > > > >Thanks - > >Nancy Mockros > > >When hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you >are replying to -- namely, do not leave old posts underneath your >reply (but by all means quote lines you particularly want to refer >to). This can greatly reduce download times, and makes emails (esp. >digest ones) much easier and faster to read. > >Later this month there will be two review-articles on Slavoj Zizek's >_The Fright of Real Tears: Krzysztof Kieslowski between Theory and >Post-Theory_: > >Richard Stamp, 'Our Friend Zizek' > >John Orr, 'Right Direction, Wrong Turning' > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:07:47 -0400 >From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: UNRELIABLE NARRATORS > >This is a multipart message in MIME format. >--=_alternative 0048253485256DA3_= >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >> how about THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE >CHARLEY > >THE THIRD MAN is a very interesting case, akin to malick, in that the >voice over narrator >[and please, PLEASE, let's not confuse a voice over narrator with the >narration of >the film itself] gets the facts right but seems to have an inadequate way >of making >sense of them . . .holly is a first cousin to linda in DAYS OF HEAVEN . . >. but i can't >imagine what would make SHADOW OF A DOUBT count as an example of >unreliable narrative > >mike >--=_alternative 0048253485256DA3_= >Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > ><br><font size=2><tt>>> how about THE THIRD MAN, and the one WITH >JOSEPH COTTON AS UNCLE CHARLEY</tt></font> ><br> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">THE THIRD MAN is >a very interesting case, akin to malick, in that the voice over narrator</font> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">[and please, >PLEASE, let's not confuse a voice over narrator with the narration of</font> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">the film itself] >gets the facts right but seems to have an inadequate way of making</font> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">sense of them . >. .holly is a first cousin to linda in DAYS OF HEAVEN . . . but i can't</font> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">imagine what >would make SHADOW OF A DOUBT count as an example of </font> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">unreliable >narrative</font> ><br> ><br><font size=2 color=#4100c2 face="Lucida Sans Unicode">mike</font> >--=_alternative 0048253485256DA3_=-- > >------------------------------ > >End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 15 Sep 2003 to 16 Sep 2003 (#2003-283) >**********************************************************************