two brief answers to panini's latest query --
first, i have no idea of, have never been able to
fathom anything like an adequate idea of, what
self-presence means . . . and i certainly can't
imagine what it might mean about narrative . . .
but i can say that i find, in teaching and talking
about film [or novels], that the concept of a
diegesis is absolutely essential . . . i can't even
begin without it . . .
but i qualify that in two ways -- first the average
viewer certainly doesn't need the term diegesis to
enjoy, understand, or respond to a movie . . . like
all other such concepts the term is essential for
a cerrtain kind of discourse ABOUT, not necessarily
for participation IN . . .
but, second, in my experience all [yes, i do mean all]
competent film viewers have a clear sense of the
distinction between narration and diegesis . . . that is
to say, they all know [without ever thinking about it]
that the violins they hear on the sound track while burt
kisses eva or richard kisses julia are in some sense
not there . . . this intuited difference between the
two registers of film narrative is presupposed by
lots of mel brooks, by the comic use of sub-titles in
ANNIE HALL or AIRPLANE, and -- most wonderfully --
by the brilliant DUCK AMUCK, to which six minutes
of every intro to film course should be devoted
mike
|