fusillo

Here you go.

Um... I had anticipated the misunderstanding, not prevented it...

mmmhhhh, I reread my comments... I had anticipated the misunderstanding, but that unpleasant tone makes me angry too... Soraludovaika forgive me if you can!!

Purpulan: Of course I could have made some mistakes, in fact I accounted for it in comment #44, but it seems that you missed some parts of the discussion. I brought up the subjective point of view as a consequence of the concepts expressed by ludovaika, who, in her posts, talks about narration narrated from the spectator's point of view (something I still find incomprehensible), which is objective, in which a psychological analysis wouldn’t be possible... So it’s certain, sure, and confirmed that Dalì and Bunuel, to make avant-garde, didn't have to necessarily resort to a well-known, defined, and codified tool like the subjective shot; on the contrary, for me, they could have done whatever the hell they wanted... This part of your post: "The 'objective' aspect emphasized by Sora, I believe, is linked to the fact that everything is done here to deny a convenient 'empathetic' or 'sympathetic' connection to the spectator" is your interpretation, which I definitely agree with, but which has nothing to do with the discussion about point of view made by Ludovica. Ah, I'm not a biased Keatonian; I'm a fanatic fundamentalist Keatonian. :-) Anyway, regardless of all this, "Un chien Andalou", even after the evolution of my "intellectual journeys", doesn’t mean anything to me. Bye.

As for "Sherlock Jr.": Was there no intention to represent the unconscious? An insert à la Melies? Isn't it a dream? Well, the real intentions of Keaton, perhaps we should ask him, and since he is now occupied, let me make a small observation: what is Buster doing in that famous sequence? He is sleeping and dreaming. How does the dream proceed, or rather the first part of the dream? Through associations of thought, (the continuous scene changes in the middle of the action), that is, the way the unconscious works, especially when it runs free like in a dream... Oh, and Buster hadn’t even read Freud, huh? Let’s say they had some common thoughts...

@Soraludovaika: I mean, the viewpoint presented by an "objective" narrative would be that of the spectator??? Well, I like you, you’re really cute, but unless I completely misunderstood what you’re trying to say (which is quite possible, to be fair...) this is the biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever read or heard. In any narrative, the perspective of a narrator is presented, which in cinema is the director or the screenwriter (let's conveniently set aside cases where the person funding the story imposes their viewpoint on how a certain event is told). The spectator just consumes what’s projected in front of them, sometimes even absurdities, possibly believing in them, hence the famous saying: "You watch too many movies...". If psychological analysis of a character is only possible when their point of view is represented, then it’s only feasible in a hypothetical film shot entirely from a first-person perspective. "Un chien Andalou" isn’t shot that way, at least as far as I remember, only "Film" by S. Beckett (again with old Buster…) is. I can’t think of any others... The psychology of all the other characters, from all the other films (those not shot in first-person), has definitively slipped away from us... I've never read a theoretical essay on cinema in my life, and now I know I've missed nothing.

"I don't know, find me some other movie from that period that had a greater impact (always regarding that point I make)." ---> Soraludovaika, check out "Sherlock Jr." by B. Keaton (if you haven't seen it already) and everything you've said about the unconscious, trip etc... you'll find it applied much better and within the context of a plot, how should I put it, solid... "Un chien" I don't know, it didn't say anything to me...

Good job!

Oh, well done Ardalo, you really know your stuff. :-)

Seen live some time ago... a ball...