For a long time, I have been interesting in how film communicates things that really aren't visual. The quintessential example is a mention in an essay, "Romans on Film", of how cinema depicts the act of thinking. Roland Barthes, wrote the piece in the early 1950s, notes that when Romans in movies have to think, they sweat. We still have a lot of these kind of signs in movies - to show someone has died, a trickle of blood will often drop from the corner of the mouth or ear, even if the injuries they sustain don't seem to indicate such a possibility...
So I was super excited to see this post from "Every Frame a Painting"..you can see text messages, but it's boring to read them. What the filmmaker is getting at is super interesting - how editors create new images that we can understand in movies...images that describe the passing of time, images that show people reading or writing. The question seems near the heart of my studio's big problem-what is the difference between seeing and reading? - only here the problem of watching is introduced. Watching allows for reading to take place. It is clearly of a different duration and focus than 'seeing'...what else?
No comments:
Post a Comment