JISCMail - FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives

In response to Mike’s last contribution to this discussion:

Enjoyment? Mmm, yes, but isn’t it interesting that this line of thinking/discussion should be the spur for several more interlinked lines of enquiry and debate. It seems that every time a question is (attempted to be) answered, another supplementary line of questioning emerges. Empirical evidence of a fruitful line for further research?

Surely, the categorical difference between Melies’ filming of theatrical presentations, and other more recent ‘technological phantasies’, resides in the distinction between the ‘fourth wall’ p.o.v. and the moving (living) camera that urges identification by the spectator with, well, something or someone.

On the one hand the spectator is invited to observe events through the single eye of the camera; in the second, the spectator is invited/implied/implicated as perceptually inhabiting that viewpoint. This is not potential thought-perception. When it is up on-screen, we perceive it and, to some extent, experience it.

Thanks for contributing and reading.

This could run ‘n run.

Gavin

From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank, Michael
Sent: 08 May 2013 15:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] floating POV

i’m not sure that “enjoying” is exactly the word i would use, but yes – this is richly fascinating, as the conversation sorts out and refines the precise shape of the questions that are being raised

let me raise one more in response to cormac’s challenge “have moving images always been merely this, a technological fantasy?”: now obviously some such images have been from the get go – i take it that there is no categorical difference between the CSI shots Cormac adduces and melies’ trip to the moon . . . whether what the lumieres were doing at the same time counts as “technological fantasy” may be more a matter of definition . . . but the more basic question i want to raise has to do with the distinction between what is being seen and who exactly may be said to be seeing it . . . and it’s not clear to me that any answer to the former necessitates any particular response to the latter

consider, yet again, the opening of rear window . . . the panoramic shot we are offered is, as the conventions of film narration make clear, not what jefferies is seeing since we see him, eyes closed, facing the opposite direction . . . but it is certainly [unlike the CSI shots] a view that someone else in the room could very easily have . . . which proposes the question: if, as some theorists argue, the existence of a narration posits a narrator, does the existence of a view posit a viewer? . . . and if it does, does the difference between a view that would be available to a human viewer [as in RW] and a view impossible for a human viewer [as is CSI] significant? . . .

thinking through this i suppose leads to the idea that in answering cormac’s original question, the capabilities of new technology don’t materially affect the discussion

mike

From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cormac Deane
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 9:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] floating POV

Dear All

I am greatly enjoying the debate on this thread.

My initial query for a term that would describe the free, floating, flexible POV shot that is common in CGI sequences has evolved into a more general discussion about the essence of POV per se. This evolution of the conversation is to my mind in keeping with the state of screen-criticism in the digital era generally, i.e. new technologies are forcing us to account once again for the fundamental attributes of all cinematic artifice, analog and digital.

The capacity of image-capturing technology to reveal to us what is normally invisible or imperceptible has been present from the start (Muybridge, Marey, Dziga-Vertov, Edgerton). That the profilmic object is no longer in play in CGI is an important consideration, but cameras of all kinds have always revealed a reality to us that is not in fact congruent with our reality, but which persuades us that it is even more real, more faithful, objective, scientific, than our own flawed, subjective, partial vision.

Having said that, I am still interested in images and sequences that seem to give a POV that cannot possibly be attached to a human. Examples of this pre-date our current era to be sure, as in the opening of Rear Window, as Marty points out. What I am still unsure about is whether this kind of omniscient descriptive shot is fundamentally the same, conceptually speaking, as the floating POV that I have described. That is, does the new technology force us to think beyond the Deleuzian (and Metzian) categories of the subjective image, the semi-subjective image, and so on? Are the images I am describing in a realm that is beyond the human and closer to the posthuman?

Here is one more clip that may be of interest and which hopefully will invite new thoughts from some of you. It is a 10-second section from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, starting with an overhead shot of a motorbike:

http://youtu.be/wX_i2vhnVKQ?t=58s

This short sequence is a version of what is commonly called the 'CSI-shot', which is a bullet's eye's view of the internal organs of a human body as it forces its way in. It seems to me that the enhanced vision that the computer offers, or seems to offer, is a key consideration here - that is, what we are looking at here is a technological fantasy. The question is, have moving images always been merely this, a technological fantasy?

Cormac

-- To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html -- Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference 2013 (Amsterdam 10-12 July): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ --

York St John rockets into the top ten for student experience (Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey 2013), rising from 58th to 9th place!

This email and any files transmitted with it were intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know by return.