Yes, but I also like the way the first one catches a real sense of
frustration...
Doug
On 24-Feb-10, at 10:34 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
> The second stanza I really enjoyed.
>
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 23:59 +0000, Barry Alpert wrote:
>> MONTAGE (DISTANCE)
>>
>> redirected by Artavazd Peleshian
>>
>>
>> Magnetic field around the film.
>> Dont call my method montage;
>> sense Ive eliminated montage.
>> Montage--Ive destroyed montage!
>> Montage, no collision, so as a result
>> montage has been destroyed in Eisenstein.
>> Anymore only the whole film has the meaning . . .
>>
>> FilM
>> invOlved
>> meaNs
>> anyThing
>> creAtes
>> fraGments,
>> entErs the territory of the sound.
>>
>
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
Why can’t words mean what they say?
Robert Kroetsch
|