 |
 |
How would the "narration" in Last Year at Marienbad be viewed? Unreliable, ambigous, vague, absent, or...? TL On Feb 24 2009, Henry M. Taylor wrote: >To reiterate and expand a previously made point, Philip K. Dick has >become the most popular science fiction author to be adapted into >films in the last 20 years or so. The closed worlds of some of the >movies that have been mentioned here are either adaptations of Dick's >stories or they are informed by his metaphysics. Some are >straightforward adaptations (Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority >Report, Paycheck, etc.), some uncredited adaptations (The Truman >Show), others inspired by or in the vein of Dick, such as Groundhog >Day, eXistenZ, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc.). > >Leo Braudy makes the distinction between open and closed films, which >he associates with the films of Renoir and Lang or Hitchcock, >respectively. The former represents the world as fundamentally open >(think of Kracauer), while the latter represents it as closed and >deterministic. The fact that Herbert's examples are all closed films >should tell us something. Sure this is in large part technology- >driven. Closed films indicate total control (of the filmmakers over >their material, over the audience) and what Bill identified as films >completely within the mind (as opposed to realism which tries to >represent the world outside the mind). Radical constructivism has >replaced realism in this type of film. > >I still don't see how this should be a reaction simply to literary >history (in the sense of 19th century novels, for instance), since big- >bucks cinema has to deal with present audiences and contemporary >desires, wishes, fears and fantasies. There has to be some kind of - >presumably symptomatic - correspondence between what is technology- >driven and what audiences enjoy seeing. > >Henry > > > > > > > > > > >> "all the philosophy invested in these films is wasted to a >> form of narration which is mainly induced by technology" >> >> That's harsh, Herbert, but I love your passion. I think you raise a >> very >> significant point in your post with your reaction vs. pretext >> dichotomy. It >> invites us to consider questions of intentionality and highlights >> the paramount >> importance of the audiences' role in the construction of their own >> narrative >> pleasure and satisfaction. It is true that a recognition of and >> familiarity with >> developments in production process technologies can greatly inform a >> film's >> reception as much as it's creation. >> >> >> "I hate so much such paranoia films as Dark >> City or The Matrix and I think it has also something to do with their >> foregrounding of the fact that the worlds are created by the filmmaker >> or by creative forces of the digital postproduction department of the >> film studios. Paranoia there is not so much a reaction to the growing >> possibilities for manipulation but more are pretext for using digital >> technology." >> >> brooke >> >> > > * * Film-Philosophy 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] Or visit: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: > [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online: > http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] ** * * Film-Philosophy 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] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **