Currie, Image and Mind, p. 267. in .NET Print Code 128B in .NET Currie, Image and Mind, p. 267.

Currie, Image and Mind, p. 267. generate, create quick response code none for .net projects Codeabar Cinematic narration then it may i ndeed be true by de nition that ctionally a camera must be present at the scene. But we need not imagine this; we could imagine that we are watching what he terms naturally iconic shots . These are de ned as shots, the features of which exhibit natural counterfactual dependence on the scene; which lack a worked surface (unlike a painting); and which are designed to store or transmit visual information.

28 The point of this de nition is that it is not conceptually necessary that such shots are produced by a camera; but they are otherwise as like actual photographic images as is possible. It follows that in imagining that I am viewing such shots of actual events, I need not imagine that a camera was present at the scene, so that no absurd consequences need follow. If we are to imagine that we are seeing naturally iconic shots, then we are to imagine something far removed from what is ctional in the majority of ction lms, whose represented worlds are overwhelmingly similar to the real world.

In the real world, the only way we can produce shots is via the presence of a camera at the scene lmed. So the viewer on this proposal would have to imagine that shots are being taken in a way that is impossible in the world of these ction lms. And it is highly implausible that the proposal captures what viewers imagine, since the concept of a naturally iconic shot is a term of art; it is a concept unlikely ever to have occurred to most lm viewers, and perhaps not even be graspable by many of them.

However, the main burden of Wilson s reply is that it may be ctionally indeterminate what mechanisms cause these shots to be produced and assembled. Indeed, he notes that there are ctions in which this seems to be so Flash Gordon s view screen gives him visual access to what is going on elsewhere, though it does not seem to be ctional that a camera is present at the scene, and it is indeterminate how the mechanism operates.29 This kind of reply, which relies on ctional indeterminacy or related notions, is open to all of the narratorial models, and we will examine it in the next section.

But if this reply is not satisfactory, we can say that the narrator as image-maker, along with the two other models, should be rejected as a general account of lm narration. 5.4 absurd imaginings and silly questions Several considerations were deployed against the three versions of cinematic narrators, but there was one common objection that their existence would.

Wilson, Le Grand Imagier Steps Out , p. 313. Ibid., pp. 314 15. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art require us to engage in absurd or even contradictory imaginings. But is that a good objection One worry is that the same kind of argument would rule out the existence of explicit narrators too. For how are we to imagine that these manage to narrate when they do so by visual means We seem to have a choice of one of the three models discussed above, but the objections to them do not depend on the narrator being implicit, so they work equally against explicit narrators.

And that suggests that something is wrong with the objection as it stands. One can press the point by considering an explicit narrator who seems to be responsible for the sound and images. All About Eve (1950) is narrated in voice-over by Addison DeWitt, a theatre critic who introduces us at the start of the lm to the characters present at an award ceremony for the actress Eve Harrington (see Figure 7).

DeWitt controls the sound he says of the aged speaker at the ceremony it is not important that you hear what he says , and we do not hear the character until, that is, DeWitt tells us he has decided. Figure 7. Eve QR Code 2d barcode for .NET Harrington (Anne Baxter) receiving her award in All about Eve (1950).

Copyright © . All rights reserved.