- Feb 2022
-
sakai.duke.edu sakai.duke.edu
-
The woman, to return to our first example, is a representation, the n10urning robe she is wearing is a representation-that is, both are objectively representable. But "a widow," arising from a juxtaposition of the two representations, is objectively unrepresentable-a new idea, a new conception, a new image
Representable vs unrepresentable image - critical distinction for argument
-
I think it is apparent that the phenomenon we are discussing is more than widespread-it is literally universal.
Possible thesis for this section
-
tbe result is qualitatively distinguishable
Eisenstein's definition of something new
-
We are certainly not criticizing all these facts, nor their noteworthiness, nor universality
"Facts", not arguments. Maybe none of these are his main idea?
-
in Freud:
Connection to Benjamin and the Slip? What is it? Evidence for its applicability to literature need not come from literature, (psych journals in this case)? Did Freud develop literature?
-
in this instance we do not gain a new concept, or a new quality
argues that not all montage is constructive?
-
Essentially, therefore, Carroll's method is a parody of a natural phenomenon, a part of our common perception-the formation of qualitatively new unities;
There is "true", perceptive montage, and there are ways to implement it in all mediums USING literary techniques, like parody
-
An extreme instance of this can be found in that inventor of the "portmanteau word,"
first claim that montage technique can also be applied to writing, not strictly language
-
he whole effect of this is built upon the circumstance that the grave and the woman in mourning beside it lead to the inference, from established convention, that she is a widow mourning her husband, whereas in fact the man for whom she is weeping is her lover.
montage can be used to mislead, if the naturally constructed image is far from the truth
-
For example, take a grave, juxtaposed with a woman in mourning weeping beside it, and scar�ely anybody will fail to jump to the conclusion: a widow.
First argues that montage is a function of perception, not strictly film
-
that two {ihn pieces of any kind, placed together, inevitably combine into a new concept, a new quality, arising out of tbat jux!aposition.
Effect under discussion. His argument is something ABOUT this phenomenon, not just that it exists
-
I consider it opportune at this juncture to recall that montage is just as indispensable a component feature of film production as any other element of film effectiveness
Not a thesis, just an assertion of how important this discussion is
-