Quote:
Originally Posted by Terabin
I'm not so sure that just by foregoing onr disrupting classic/rational/logic narrative that that equals an appeal to the senses. There has to be techniques that the filmmakers are using that make that appeal.
|
You can't attribute everything to techniques. That way you lock out creativity and the artistic. Maybe the techniques haven't changed, the ideas have. Besides, I get the idea you approach this as a black and white situation. Or think that I do. I never said anywhere that films previously did not appeal to viewers, nor that directors these days use different techniques. Disruption of narrative was just one example of how to shift the balance from narrative storytelling to synesthetic storytelling. Again, I'm NOT saying that the latter is lacking in older films and the former is not present in present day films.
Quote:
|
It IS the case that directors like Darren Aronofsky and David Lynch use experimental aural and visual techniques to distance and objectify the viewer.
|
I agree on the former, but definitely not on the latter part. Distantiate the viewer? I'm not sure that is always the result, certainly not with Aronofsky and Lynch. When you objectify the viewer, or create a distance, he will rationalize what he sees. That approach will lead to nowhere when you see a Lynch films. Those films rely on pulling the viewer into their own, surreal worlds and the viewer to abandon rationality and objectivity to approach these worlds.
Therefore, I don't think your classification of subjectifying and objectifying can be used here.
