|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Dec 30, 2023 20:22:03 GMT
Let's say we're all watching The Phantom Menace. We all see and hear the symbolic depiction of the fictional character Jar Jar Binks. He's a silly dinosaur man or whatever. We would all normally say that Jar Jar Binks is "in the movie." OK.
But is "Jar Jar Binks" <--- this word combo/text string/character sequence IN the movie or OUTSIDE the movie? Then potentially expand this specific problem in film theory to all possible word combos/text strings/character sequences if needed. "Silly dinosaur man."
Or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Dec 31, 2023 9:21:08 GMT
I can't say I fallow entirely. By pointing to his full name in quotations do you mean the actual verbal utterance. I'm going off memory with this one but I think it's spoken aloud on four separate occasions:
1.
"Mesa called Jar Jar Binks! Mesa your humble servant!" 2.
"What is to become of Jar Jar Binks here?" 3.
"Whosa are yusa?"
"I'm Padme."
"Mesa Jar Jar Binks." 4.
"Jar Jar Binks."
"Mesa, your Highness?"
"Yes. I need your help."
But then when you say OUTSIDE the movie, uh, assistance required. I'm dense. I'm so dense. 
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Dec 31, 2023 11:39:45 GMT
I miss Jar Jar. Give him his own series already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Dec 31, 2023 15:22:50 GMT
I can't say I fallow entirely. By pointing to his full name in quotations do you mean the actual verbal utterance. I'm going off memory with this one but I think it's spoken aloud on four separate occasions:
1.
"Mesa called Jar Jar Binks! Mesa your humble servant!" 2.
"What is to become of Jar Jar Binks here?" 3.
"Whosa are yusa?"
"I'm Padme."
"Mesa Jar Jar Binks" 4.
"Jar Jar Binks"
"Mesa, your Highness?"
"Yes. I need your help."
But then when you say OUTSIDE the movie, uh, assistance required. I'm dense. I'm so dense.
I mean: does the TEXT itself as a sort of trace *count* as being "in" the movie if the sound-utterance and/or image thing is there? Is the script+ in the movie or is it an external, non-overlapping piece? By extension, do critics realize that their criticisms are not necessarily external to the objects they are criticizing? "Yeah, but that's in the movie." as a defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Jan 2, 2024 22:47:39 GMT
If it does hypothetically, might you give me a moment in the film that best exemplifies ...and as a challenge outside the sandbox of Episode I, a moment from either of the two sequels where Jar Jar's presence is significantly less.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Jan 23, 2024 6:15:45 GMT
Let's say we're all watching The Phantom Menace. We all see and hear the symbolic depiction of the fictional character Jar Jar Binks. He's a silly dinosaur man or whatever. We would all normally say that Jar Jar Binks is "in the movie." OK. But is "Jar Jar Binks" <--- this word combo/text string/character sequence IN the movie or OUTSIDE the movie? Then potentially expand this specific problem in film theory to all possible word combos/text strings/character sequences if needed. "Silly dinosaur man." Or whatever.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe "Phantom Menace" or "The Phantom Menace" is ever said in the movie either. This makes film quite distinct from pop music, where the title may be all the author has to say, in endless repetition. The title of a movie need only offer a clue or a riddle, it does not necessarily have to encapsulate it.
A film is made, it stays the same*, it is a work of art that is marked into the historical record, and will be assessed contemporarily by the film critics and in the future by film historians, social historians and indeed more generations of film critics. For us, as the mere viewers, our relationship to a film is likely to change as we age and incur new experiences, and our place/role in life changes. Some characters will become more relatable, others less so, and the themes of the film more interesting or disinteresting. The temptation will then be for the viewer to conclude that the film has changed, just as man once declared the Sun rises, moves across the sky and sets. But this is not how objective reality works. The Earth moves and our observation of the Sun does with it; we personally (emotionally, physically) change and our relationship to the film in turn changes.
But the text stays the same.
The society in which a text exists also changes. This is when a large number of persons change in a nation or part of the world. It's relationship to a text of the past will be informed by the historians, the scholars of literature and where required, film historians. Sometimes a popular perception will be the driving force, and this may then prejudice the opinion of a newcomer to a text, rendering a close, open-minded viewing as the only counter to such stigma. The believes and principles/norms of one's society will have a massive effect on how one interacts with a text. Such is the case, an American in 2024 will approach a Western film with a very different perspective to an American in 1954, or an American and Iranian in today's world. A great body of art that impact the public is known as culture, and so films are part of a complex that can mould the attitudes of the future, including on films not yet made. There is no escaping society, none of us exist in a cultural vacuum, we all bring our prejudices, interests, hopes and fears to a text. Politics and culture are in a symbiotic relationship and we are its products.
But the text stays the same.
The perception of Jar-Jar Binks in 1999's Episode I may be shaped by his appearances in future Star Wars works aka the Disney content conveyor bel. This is a type of retrospective phenomenon and explains why both a Disney and Lucas board exist on this forum aka compartmentalisation. When you write in the later, you are free to assume the sequels don't exist, and references to retcons not made by Lucas are highly frowned on.
B u t t h e t e x t s t a y s t h e s a m e.
*excluding the Original Trilogy of Star Wars
|
|
