Yoshie writes:
> For representation of disability to become representation
of diverse singular disabled persons rather than types, there
would have to be hundreds of portrayals of disabled persons
-- especially as major characters -- on film.
Why?
> If there were hundreds of major disabled characters on the film,
we could take the character played by Hillary Swank in _Million
Dollar Baby_ as a singular individual, just one disabled person
who makes a uniquely tragic choice unlike all other disabled
characters.
This only follows if one accepts your premise. Unfortunately, you do not prove your premise, you baldly assert it expecting agreement. Also, why is Swank's choice tragic? Since it does not conform to the choice you would make?
> More likely than not, though, the Swank character is the only
major disabled character most American movie-goers have and
will see in many years.
So? BTW, MDB has three disabled characters in its narrative.
> So the character becomes a type that represents a category of
people -- the disabled -- in such movie-goers' cinematic memory,
because they have not and will not see any other memorable
disabled character for a long time.
You are now reading the minds of the audience? Again, you merely assert and do not offer logical argument as proof.
kelley writes:
> hmmm. this exchange sounded so dang, dang academic!
Touche!!! You got me. LOL.
I guess I have to come out of the closet and admit I am a cinematic academic manque!
> 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.
They may not see these things, but I think they are influenced by them.
> 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.
But I think people are exposed to enough visual stimuli that they learn cinematic language even if they are unaware that they do.
> They tip their hat to film makers who've influenced them, for instance,
I would call that a more specialized area of cinematic knowledge, distinct from . . .
> . . . lighting techniques and such
That language is fairly standard. Cathedral lighting is cathedral lighting no matter who is deploying it. It is the same as an exclamation point in written language -- it means the same thing no matter who uses it.
> 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.
It takes a lot of looking at films and not getting caught up in the narrative or at least apportioning part of your brain to register and remember technique. For example, I drive my friends crazy since I can watch a film and automatically count the number of shots while still focusing on narrative and other aspects of the work.
> Which is why the slippage occurs -- why there are a variety of readings
of film, I think.
There are a variety ways of reading a film, but the question is: are certain ways of seeing a film more valuable, useful, valid than other ways.
It also occurs because of the dreamstate/mindscreen aspects of cinema. There is an entire school of surrealist criticism that encourges viewers to riff on what they see (into which category I would place Joanna's post).
> 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.
A wonderful opportunity exists tonight.
On Turner Classic Movies, "Kapo" by Pontecorvo is playing at 8:00 p.m. EST. This film is the subject of one of the most famous essays ever written for Cahiers du Cinema by Jacques Rivette, the great French critic and filmmaker ("Celine and Julie Go Boating"). In this essay he made the famous observation about an immoral tracking shot. Specifically, he was talking about a scene where a concentration camp victim walks into an electrified fence to kill herself. The camera tracks foward until her body is exquisitely framed -- hence Rivette's notion of the immoral tracking shot.
Serge Daney's essay on this comment can be found at:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/30/kapo_daney.html
If you can glance at the essay, then see the film, and then do a deeper reading of the essay, much will become clear. Serge Daney is one of the great writers on film.
This interview with Daney is also great:
http://home.earthlink.net/~steevee/Daney_1977.html
The entire site:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/index.html
is a wonderful place to get an education.
I also recommend:
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/
I have found the best way is to read about particular directors/films and from these discussions you learns the "lingo" you referred to earlier. It is especially good to read about films/directors you are familiar with so that the discussion is not taking place in a vaccuum.
> 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.
"What is Cinema?" by Andre Bazin
"The Cinema of Cruelty" by Andre Bazin
Robin Wood's book on Alfred Hitchcock (the latest edition)
There are several collections of articles from Cahier's du Cinema arranged by decade. The volumes on the 50's and 60's are very useful.
"Mindscreen" by Bruce Kawin
"Cinema I" and "Cinema II" by Gilles Deleuze
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister (and out-of-the-closet cinematic academic)