|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films, alt.movies, rec.arts.movies.current-films, alt.cult-movies
From: "Craig Franck" <craig.fra...@verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:43:34 GMT
Local: Sat, Jun 12 2004 3:43 am
Subject: Re: how come subjective viewpoint cinema doesn't work?
"choral reef" wrote
> of course, most movies use momentary subjective view shots but how It might sound absurd, but many people take a God's-eye view of a > come camera is a poor substitute for extended subjective shots? > how come movies that utilize long subjective take--lady in the > lake--are considered aesthetic failures? > could citizen kane have worked using subjective perspective throughout > now explain memory flashbacks or dreams. these are meant to be situation that they recall. Most recollections are reconstructions rather than sensory playbacks. When I dream, I am as often observing myself as I am being me. I think it works because it mimics the format of our psychological experiences. This is in keeping with the movie-as-a-dream theory of film. From an analytical POV, the problem with extended subjective shots is > best use of subjective shot? "Russian Ark" was a single shot from a subject POV, but it broke down logically toward the end. "Being John Malkovich" and "Halloween" are two others. -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||