File spoon-archives/film-theory.archive/film-theory_1995/film-theory_Feb.95, message 28


Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 09:18:23 -0500
From: malgosia askanas <egg-AT-martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Point-of-view, primary id and all that jazz


Alan wrote:

> The nearest to a determination might be in examing those 
> signifiers or instances that lend themselves to diegesis, and in Marker's 
> film diegesis, with its interplay of temporality, is paradoxical and con- 
> voluted.

> One might, by the way, go so far as to say that there is no subject 
> outside of construction, that we are not subjects (except in the sense of 
> belonging to one or another physical or political entity), and that what 
> might be called "subject" is a confluence of constructs, empty otherwise. 

So "subject construction", in the filmic sense, has to do with a confluence
of constructs that have to do with diegesis?  My confusion stems from, among 
other things, the fact that I've had the impression that "subject 
construction" had to do with ideology, with certain attitudes that can be 
said to be imparted by the work.  In that case, it would have very little 
to do with diegesis -- cf. MTV, commercials, TV news programs, etc., etc. 
So would the term "subject construction" then _not_ apply to such 
non-diegetic things?  And which diegetic things does it apply to?  If Marker's
diegesis is convoluted, then so is P.K. Dick's and _The_Terminator_'s, yes?  
So does one talk about "subject construction" only in cases where 
the diegesis meets certain standards of straighforwardness?  What are 
these standards?  And which are the relevant constructs? 


- malgosia 

-------- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu -------

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005