Eastwood's mise en
>scene works directly against this interpretation.
hmmm. this exchange sounded so dang, dang academic!
*grin*
<...>
>A question:
>
>Why does Eastwood give narration to Morgan Freeman?
>It is the first time in Eastwood's career that he uses voice-
>over narration and one of the rare times in a Hollywood movie that that
>the controlling consciousness is that of a
>Black man. Essentially, the entire film is Freeman's
>mindscreen of what occurred.
I think these are good points, just in and of themselves, since I haven't seen the film. What I find interesting is your use of film analysis to see things that the ordinary viewer simply might not notice, let alone be influenced by.
To me, it's always an interesting issue. I wonder to what degree the language of film is actually interpreted by the audience as the film maker intended. Clearly, film makers speak a kind of specialist language, speaking to other people who understand the lingo. They tip their hat to film makers who've influenced them, for instance, play on lighting techniques and such in a way only someone intimate with the language of film can understand -- and, most especially, verbalize in order to understand how the film works on her psyche.
Which is why the slippage occurs -- why there are a variety of readings of film, I think. The message is never seamless and transparant -- and not simply because the language isn't understood by everyone viewing a film.
He is not a deus ex machina imposing his
>own will (as the priest wants him to do), but honoring
>Swank's request. The scene, shot in low-contrast
>lighting eschews any sense of holiness -- you are
>confusing Eastwood with Spielberg and his cathedral
>lighting effects.
... A point underlined by Eastwood's mise en scene. Many scenes are bathed in light and surrounded by darkness; many characters step out of darklness to participate in scenes or to make their presence known. With this technique Eastwood particularizes his characters and their actions: they are not representatives of some larger group, but specific characters in specific circumstances.
Interesting. Brian (and anyone else into film interpretation), where might I learn more about reading films from this perspective -- look at lighting and other similar techniques to understand what a film maker is up to when she uses them. I don't know much about the technical terms and, of course, would like a kind of primer that describe the uses of a technique in a film that I can view and then learn to look for it in other films.
Can you recommend a good book? I tend to analyze film's as a sociologist, which is quite different from the way many film theory buffs look at film.
Which reminds me, if you're interested, there are lots of film buffs on Pulp Culture list. You might like the discussions --
you can subscribe here: <mailto:pulp-request at rakfoundry.com?subject=subscribe>
Kelley