There is also no such thing as an edit in real life, or a disembodied viewer of our narratives, or narratives.
Life lacks a plot, too.
Life lacks a plot or a narrative?
hmmmmm………
I think it’d be fair to say life lacks a narrative because it isn’t constructed, and plot is simply a narrative trait, so yes, life has neither plot nor narrative. That said, a cliché is an expressionistic object, in the philosophical sense of the word, of an artistic work which through overuse has become meaningless or just redundant. I don’t think editing counts, and I also very much dislike the idea of a disembodied viewer. I think it’s wrong and limiting regarding the miracle of the moving audio-image, but Daniel Frampton explains it with so much more articulacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/23/film.comment1
You’re quite committed to the interrogative, huh?
@Alex: I fail to see how the phrase “disembodied viewer” runs contrary to the article in your link.
Life’s full of cliches.
Cliches are full of life!
But let’s not forget, life lacks a blue sky at night too. Tell that to Van Gogh.
@Alex: “Articulacy?”
dp
Greg, I am an innovator and as such invent words at whim.
Bruce, this would be a long reply if I were to do it properly, but in short, because we do not see in real life as we see in Cinema, the screen does not reflect human vision. Cinema, as Frampton says, thinks. Perhaps we should agree on what a disembodied viewer is, for me that implies someone having an outer-body experience, I guess they’re called, which isn’t what cinema is. I don’t like advertising people to buy things, but his book Filmosophy is a really thoughtful and delightful mediation on the audio-image. If you’re interested in theory it would be far more insightful than I would.
@Alex: How does it in any way suggest that what we are seeing is reflecting how we really see? For me it means what it sounds like: a viewer without a body (or removed from one, as you interpreted it, if we’re going to argue semantics), which is an experience I’ve never had the pleasure of in “real life”, as much as I can’t speak for others. No matter the point a film is trying to make there is always an image, that is simply imposed by the constraints of the medium, if you take issue my phrase identifying film as eyes before a mind, paradigm or language or whatever other metaphor you find most appropriate.
Yeah, I don’t see it as a big deal. I would say that perhaps filmmakers tend to use blue to colour the sky for lighting purposes? I’ve never really thought about it, but if I were to film something at night I’d want some light around, otherwise what’s the point of filming in pitch black?
Verisimilitude ain’t everything. It’s amazing how “day for night” scenes still work. I just saw “Last Year at Marienbad” and am thinking of when Delphine Seyrig wanders through the garden with a shoe in her hand. No scene shot at night could have been as effective, I believe. Hooray for illusion!
Somebody coughing in a scene as a way of presaging a serious illness – usually a terminal one.
And the boffin in a thriller whose narrative function is to impart recondite information to hero. They usually live in a secluded place, and have the mien of a geek which automatically precludes them from hero-status. Moreover, they usually die shortly after imparting of information as bad-guy discovers their hiding-place.
Didn’t read full title, thought it was a more general discussion on film cliches – apologies.
Daniel Krone
Night time blue. Nights are simply darker. They’re not magically royal blue filtered. That’s just lazy. Maybe magical for some but not I.