Mike

I suppose the number of hands would only be noticeable by a change from the norm. Why does the villain the The Fugitive have one arm?

On the other hand, it IS a decision, albeit seemingly inconsequential, to LEAVE everyone fully limbed, since any difference from 'the norm' would immediately invite interpretation. (why am I suddenly reminded of the Pete & Dud sketch about the one-legged man auditioning for Tarzan?) Okay so, few directors will put on their production meeting agenda "Item 8: No. of limbs of cast", but the decision-making process surely works by subtraction (no pun intended): any decision to break versimilitude is effectively adding meaning. I think this is why films such as About Schmidt, Secretary, Happiness etc. are so wonderful, because they refuse to subtract in favour of versimilitude, and instead are uncomfortably 'real'. Their realism almost feels like it's added in.

So I repeat - roadsigns add to verisimilitude, since there is a decision made about their subtraction, but also add layers of meaning. It largely depends on cinematic devices used - if the camera cuts to a sign, or headlights illuminate it for the camera (one of Conley's example) it invite interpretation, since we have become accustomed to these sorts of visual cues.

I'm not entirely sure I've explained this well, but it is the end of the day. However, I will say this:

"You're right leg is fine, I like you're right leg. I have nothing against it. The trouble is, neither have you."

best

Damian

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Frank [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 January 2004 16:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: query: readable signs


another point . . . damian writes . . .

       >the principles of mise-en-scene suggest that nothing is on screen without a reason

and no doubt this is in some sense true, but we may well ask in
what sense . . . it is no doubt true that  the characters in [fill
in almost any movie of your choice] have two hands--as opposed
to five or none-- and that we often see those hands as part of the
mise-en-scene . . .   but the "reason" for that would seem to be
simply that human beings have two hands, and that interpreting the
number two further than that [say, as part of a reading that
wanted to emphasize the dualism of the director's vision] would
in the absence of other supporting evidence, be merely silly and
willful

so the question may not be whether a detail has a reason, only
whether that reason is readable as part of an interpretive strategy

mike * * 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-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **

* * 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-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **