That isn't true, about 'Deja Vu', is it? There aren't cameras, as
such, it's a wormhole. Reality isn't manipulated via camera, it's
manipulated by DW going through thw wormhole.
It would be easier to reply to this kind of question if it wasn't
larded with knee-jerk anti-Americanism and snobbery towards mainstream
films and their viewers, to be honest. too many assumptions being made
about 'other' (non-philosopher) viewers.
the viewer is provided a feeling of (infantile-narcissistic) omnipotence
are they?
while at the same time reassured that surveillance is, after all,
visible to him/her
is that reassuring?
while, in a post-Foucault movement, reassured that the Big Other's
all-perceiving gaze guarantees his/her own existence within the field
of the symbolic.
who are the viewers you're talking about, who feel their
existence-within-the-field-of-the-symbolic is guaranteed by the "gaze"
(scrutiny) of the Big Other (USUK intelligence). i don't think anyone
is very reassured by the idea of echelon surveillance, for example;
who is?
On 8/29/07, Evgeni V. Pavlov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Thanks for an interesting angle, esp. vis-a-vis the difference
> between soviet and american traditions of intelligence, which is
> very clearly presented by, say, bourne films and The Lives of Others,
> i wonder if you could recommend a good study on this subject. the
> emphasis on the visual, it seems, works much better in terms of trying
> to represent the process (or rather to imagine how it would look in
> an ideal state, a sort of "ideal surveillance situation" may habermas
> forgive me) - i wonder in this case if film representation is actually
> influencing the actual development of surveillance and not the other
> way around?
>
> in the last bourne film there's a scene where CIA folks are following
> an operation in which a former CIA fellow is about to be eliminated,
> however, the operation takes place in Morocco where they don't have as
> much surveillance as in London for the filmmakers to incorporate into
> the scene, so they do a rather amusing and clearly childish thing where
> CIA bosses stare at the map of Tangir and the agent and his target are
> represented with cure little moving dots. in another scene they have a
> fellow with a camera on a motorcycle following a suspect - it looked like
> it was very uncomfortable for the guy to ride a bike and hold a camera, and
> of course every agent in the field has a small digital camera - they are even
> attached to a gun in one scene. all of this, i wonder, just so that people
> back at the office have something to look at, even if it very likely needlessly
> complicates the actual surveillance.
>
> in any case, i wonder if this visual aspect of surveillance could be likened to
> the very essence of cinema itself - this time it's a kind of fantastic reality TV
> with a watchful eye of the camera (not necessarily people behind the camera as most
> of the surveillance visuals are just there and no one is really watching them)
> following bad guys - to a point that, as in that Deja Vu film that came out not
> while ago with Denzel Washington playing ATF agent investigating an explosion,
> cameras allow us to manipulate reality. any thoughts?
>
> evgeni
>
>
>
> --- "Henry M. Taylor" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Evgeni,
> >
> >
> > as I'm still (!) engaged with research dealing with paranoia and
> > conspiracy in film, the question of surveillance is of obvious
> > relevance and interest. You certainly ask some pertinent questions. I
> > haven't seen the Bourne Ultimatung yet - though I'm acquainted with
> > the rather good original tv serial from the 80s these remakes/sequels
> > are based on, as well as having watched the Bourne Supremacy, which
> > was entertaining but quite forgettable.
> >
> > If it were so easy to just track and, if necessary, eliminate someone
> > someplace on the globe, how come the CIA, Special Forces, NSA etc.
> > etc. haven't been able to catch Osama Bin Laden yet?
> >
> > This whole technological surveillance 'utopia' (or dystopia,
> > depending on your POV) strikes me as a very American thing. If you
> > look at the history of intelligence agencies, espionage and the
> > secret services and compare those in the US with those in the former
> > Soviet Union, you will find different traditions at work. The
> > Americans have always been gung-ho about cost-intensive technological
> > (especially visual) surveillance and intelligence-gathering, while
> > the Soviets/Russians tended to focus on (linguistic) human
> > intelligence: what is called 'trade craft': the legwork and hands-on
> > type of dirty work (sexual blackmailing, etc.). Which was/is
> > presumably also driven by budgetary considerations.
> >
> > From a filmic POV, the viewer is provided a feeling of (infantile-
> > narcissistic) omnipotence, while at the same time reassured that
> > surveillance is, after all, visible to him/her, while, in a post-
> > Foucault movement, reassured that the Big Other's all-perceiving gaze
> > guarantees his/her own existence within the field of the symbolic.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
> > H
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > greetings, i'm new to the list so pardon me if this was already a
> > > topic of discussion. i'm more on
> > > the "philosophy" side of the equation, so pardon that as well. i
> > > went to see the final installment
> > > of the bourne films - Bourne Ultimatum - which, as i expected, was
> > > visually entertaining but
> > > nothing more, a rather banal and paranoid idea but, and here is my
> > > main question, i also happened
> > > to watch Das Leben der Anderen (Lives of Others) a day before (it
> > > just came out on DVD in the US)
> > > and i found myself wondering about a number of issues related to
> > > the representation of
> > > surveillance. in the bourne film we see, as in many other films
> > > lately, a kind of a surveillance
> > > paradise where bosses in Virginia are able to track and actually
> > > observe the movements of their
> > > agents in London. so here are some questions that i'd be happy to
> > > engage with anyone interested
> > > (note that i'm still mulling over these ideas and haven't done any
> > > actual research or serious
> > > thinking for that matter):
> > >
> > > 1. what is the actual state of surveillance compared to that in the
> > > films like Bourne Ultimatum?
> > > it seems rather easy to locate anyone of the globe, track their
> > > movements, send instant txt
> > > messages to an army of disposable assassins - i wonder if there is
> > > a good study of actual
> > > capabilities and a comparison with a kind of imaginary surveillance
> > > utopia.
> > >
> > > 2. while Das Leben der Anderen leaves one (among other things) with
> > > a kind of nightmarish feeling
> > > of being watched, even if a hero is partially redeemed in the end,
> > > most of American
> > > representations of surveillance function on the bases of a kind of
> > > "perverse utilitarianism" - as
> > > long as we are saving OUR lives, it is ok, not very comfortable but
> > > for the sake of security - in
> > > fact, the whole premise of Bourne films is this stepping over the
> > > line, not the line itself. what
> > > does this dream (if it is as unrealistic as i suspect) tell us
> > > about contemporary western society?
> > >
> > >
> > > evgeni v. pavlov
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > ______________
> > > Got a little couch potato?
> > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> > > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities
> > > +for+kids&cs=bz
> > >
> > > *
> > > *
> > > 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 journal: 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 journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > **
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
> Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
>
> *
> *
> 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 journal: 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 journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|