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 ------- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005