[lbo-talk] film theory

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Mon Aug 20 12:24:31 PDT 2007


Reading this made me think of Brian Dauth:

<http://fleshbot.com/sex/flesh-flicks/flesh-flicks-giving-alexis- amore-some-props-291415.php>

Flesh Flicks: Giving Alexis Amore Some Props

Now when the establishing shot of a scene is a close up on a giant purple dildo/vibrator, isn't it pretty much a given that the device in question will figure prominently in the action? (That's called "foreshadowing.") And when there are other phallic objects in the room that usually means the director is trying to establish a particular visual motif, in this case to get the viewer thinking about the insertion of large objects. (That's called "mise-en- scène.") So how does Alexis Amore completely ignore the purple elephant in the room and only think to put it inside her after the considerable deed is already over? (That's called "missing the point.") We will never understand abstract cinema.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list