> michael
>
> There seem to be two distinct and useful meanings. Yours, I believe, is the
> older one - the Greeks - but no more authentic for that. The one Mike and
> many or most others use and have been using in this discussion is, I
> suspect, one that originates, as Mike described, in more recent society of
> (film?) narrative theory and might, like a river, not have a single source.
>
> Ross
>
Yes, Ross, I'm coming from (mostly heideggerian) philosophy and not
semiotics and narrative theory so much (although I have a strong interest in
film and art in general...) and thus I [try to] think the originary meanings
(which interest me a great deal) and how these still might distantly work in
modern(ist) thinking. Having gotten thus far (away from modern(ist)
narrative theory), I wonder how both (the originary meanings of) diegesis
and mimesis work themselves and their difference out in filmic art works
(e.g., how filmic sequences might show {mimesis} what they tell {diegesis}
in the same breath as the telling... or how they might significantly
diverge, as in Malick's voice-overs in Thin Red Line, say...).
regrads
michaelP
*
*
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.
**
|