| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Sonesson, Göran
(författare)
-
Au délà du montage, la rhétorique du cinéma
- 2002
-
Ingår i: Visio. - 1026-8340. ; 7:1-2, s. 155-170
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract in French Au-delà du montage – la rhétorique du cinéma Contrairement à d'autres types d'images plus statiques, le film, avec son fort "effet de réalité", semble résister à une explication inspirée d'un modèle rhétorique. Même du point de vue d'une rhétorique "écologique", telle que la nôtre, qui reconnaît une rupture de normes déjà dans les transformations homogènes, le film peut facilement donner l'impression d'être trop fermement enraciné dans le monde de la vie pour pouvoir fonctionner d'une manière rhétorique. Le montage classique, tel que l'on le trouve, notamment, chez Eisenstein et Pudovkin, constitue évidemment le contre-exemple le plus convaincant. Mais il faut aller au-delà du montage classique, vers les différentes régions de sens, ou les niveaux de fictions, pour trouver la vraie rhétorique du film. Beyond the montage – the rhetoric of the cinema Contrary to the static picture, the film, which conveys such a strong impression of reality, seems to resist any explanation which takes its point of departure in a rhetorical model. Even from the point of view of the “ecological” rhetoric defended by the present author, which recognises homogeneous transformations, alongside the heterogeneous ones, the film may easily give the impression of being too firmly rooted in the common sense Lifeworld for it to be interpreted rhetorically. No doubt it is easy to discover a rhetorical aspect in the classical theories of the montage formulated by Eisenstein and Pudovkin. But it will be necessary to go well beyond these classical conceptions to different levels of meaning and fiction in order to discover the real rhetoric of the cinema.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sonesson, Göran
(författare)
-
Retour sur la matière du sens à l’ére de la production digitale
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Visio. - 1026-8340. ; 9:1-2, s. 215-234
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The task of the present study is to establish the useful of the distinction between plastic language and iconic language, as introduced by Floch and the Groupe µ, with the proviso that it has to be changed in a number of ways. To begin with, we should not talk about iconic language, but rather about a pictorial one, because iconicity is a much broader concept, and just as probably may found on the side of plasticity as on that of pictorality. In the second place, there is not much point in making the distinction, if, as Floch certainly suggests, and, at least some of time, also the Groupe µ, the content of plastic language is redundant in comparison with the pictorial one. Finally, it is not possible to identify plasticity with the aesthetic function, with is not even a sign function, but rather a thematic operation. We also broaches a few further issues which may constitute problems for the theory of plastic language; the materiality, which is a thematic operation, though it does not necessarily coincide with the aesthetic function; and, at the other extreme, the virtuality of the computer image, the surface of which seems impossible to pinpoint, and whose evasiveness is already anticipated by the hologram, and even by the slide.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
