Therefore at first sight, this question boils down to a) can the camera lie, and b) realism. I would argue that strictly speaking, outside of context, the camera never lies. However, in practice, there is always some sort of context (filmic and extra-filmic), so that the camera - as we all know - may very well be lying. Realism is the wider set of strategies and conventions which makes us believe in the truth of an image. Even today, there are certain things of such phenomenal richness which Hollywood could never convincingly produce in the studio or computer. The collapsing twin towers of 9/11, for instance. Those were 'true' images.

Of course, I guess, you might be referring to a 'deeper' truth. Deleuze was dealing with that in the time-image. If (symbolic and conventional) realism doesn't suffice, try the Lacanian real. That hurts (Barthes' punctum in Camera Lucida). Hence, there are plural truths, not just one.

In the context of writing about film, video and history.....I'm trying to find material on film and the theory of truth. I wonder for instance whether we ever say of a shot that it is true, the way we say that a sentence is true. Or do we just talk about 'actual footage' or 'video evidence' or something else. Has anyone ever tried to formulate something like 'A shot is true if and only if......? Or is there no point?

Anyway is anyone aware of writing or films that reflect on the conditions under which a shot (or a film) is 'true'? Or of writing that says that truth is not a concept relevant to film?

Ross
* * 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]. 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] **