 |
 |
The multi-tasking that we see on the computer and TV screen is by the machine, seldom by the viewer. Without getting into sex differences, it might be that multitasking is more of female skill than a male skill. I've been a multi-tasking since my early baby-sitting days...the kids, the tv, the homework, etc... My friends would sometimes kindly say something like "Which conversation does that comment belong to?" when having a meandering talk while walking. The point is that it is easy to out-put multi-tasking product than to take it in. I suspect it will not be very popular, unless the visual of one screen is in sychn with the audio of another and the story on the same page. I saw 21 GRAMS and felt it was like putting together an ESCHER print (either the fish to bird, or up / down stairs, or both). What you thought was a fish, was actually a bird; what you thought was in the past, was actually in the future. Interesting exercise, but not for most people...too much effort required. Might be fun in a real mystery. > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:24:42 +0000 > From: James Fiumara <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: another comment on Julie Talen's Pretend > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:53:58 -0800, Steven Shaviro > <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> The sort of fragmentation of the visual field that is evident in >> /Pretend/ is really just a way of moving cinema, that quintessential >> 20th-century art form, fully into the 21st century. > [...] >> Today, under the impact of computers, and more generally the >> information >> and communications revolutions of the last thirty years, our minds >> have >> become more accustomed to multi-tasking, and our visual experience has >> become ever more heterogeneous and fragmented. >-- > > I haven't seen _Pretend_ but Steven's review certainly makes me want to > track this movie down (Steven's reviews of films and books are always > quite > good!). > > However, I question the notion that the use of multi-images/frames in > the > mode of _Timecode_ or the movie in question is necessarily the next > step in > the progression of the cinema (i.e., to move it into the 21st century). > Certainly, I understand and recognize the notion of postmodern visual > fragmentation, etc. and the growing influence of digital > media/computers on > film (both in terms of production and reception), but I think an > argument > can be made that visually experiencing/interacting with a computer and > watching a movie are not analogous processes (despite some > commonalities). > > Meaning, to be more precise, that although our minds may be more > accustomed > to multi-tasking and the heterogeneous, multi-window images of > computers, > our expectations and desires for cinematic experience may be (and I > think > generally are) of a different type--even in the 21st Century. > > Ultimately, any technique and/or form that allows the successful > telling of > a narrative is a good thing (and if it questions dominant forms at the > same > time, all the better)--and it sounds from your review that Talen uses > this > form successfully. In general I don't disagree with your post, I only > bring > up the above to question whether the multi-window form of the computer > will > (or should) become the model for 21st century cinema or whether the > movie- > going public will (or even wants) to embrace such a model. Is the > multi- > frame form a la _Timecode_ and _Pretend_ more akin to such things as > 3-D, > Smellovision or William Castle-esque "gimmicks" that pop up from time > to > time in the history of cinema, but typically don't last as a viable > (or at > least popular) form? > > (of course, I know that is not necessarily the conclusion of your post > but > I wanted to use your review to pose the question). > > Thanks for the review, Steven. > > -James Fiumara > > * > * > * > * > *** > -------------- > > End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 1 Dec 2003 (#2003-372) > ****************************************************** > * * * * *** Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosopy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. ***