From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:59:43 PDT
I'm going to have to print this paper ("The Myth Of....") and really study
I'm finding myself very symapathetic to the authors' intentions re how this
myth as it seems they rightly call it gets absorbed into film theory without
"...... they refer specifically to film as having a very slight
articulation of difference between the frames. Well, yes, except when it
Jeanne, I think the 'except when it doesn't' is reasonably implied....
"Of course we all willfully refuse to be passive as viewers and seek a
theory whereby such activity can be reinforced via our perceptual apparatus.
I really really don't think applying cognitive neuroscience (at its
ownboundaries of known and unkown)
to film viewing need imply any, let's call it an ontological passivity !
Quite the opposite, I'll try & argue later.
That said, we _are_ hardwired for certain things..... I recall William
Kentridge in a lecture *demolishing*
the "willing suspension of disbelief" by simply standing in front of the
screen we'd just seen his work
projected on and pointing out were he to walk up to the projection booth
glass and make a hand-shadow
image of a bird in the projector beam and shadowed on the screen, we could
not NOT see a bird flapping it's wings !
FrameWorks mailing list