recently, there was a review by stanley kauffmann (april 23, 1008) on
walter murch's article in the spring issue of some journal called
Three Penny Review. i never heard of the journal and i aint read
murch's stuff. but, murch's linking of cinema with dream 'language'
is mostly bogus. murch argues that early pioneers of cinema were
skeptical about editing because the cutting and pasting of space and
time violated our actual waking perception of reality--especially
significant in an artform known for its realism.
since we don't experience the dynamics and effects of editing in our
actual real-life experience, how can we expect the audience to make
sense out of a narrative which intercuts across various parcels or
snippets of reality? the wonder of cinema is that editing has not
only worked...

On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:23:26 -0700, death from above wrote:

Film, art in general, is it's own language in development usually lead by
new vision and new technology. Hard wiring "what seems real" is pretty
stuffy. Besides, what feels real is really not the point. What gives real
feeling is, right? Reality is always damned when told by another.

What director said, "I make a moral decision each time I place the
tripod"?

On May 10, 8:22 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

As easily, the one with a colossal flop to produce. Reality is
secondary and subsidiary to inspiration, whether or not there's the
moral choice to confront the stasis of reality. In actuality, it may...