Falsehood and Cinema
12 October 2007 12:02 Filed in: Calls for
Papers
FALSEHOOD AND CINEMA
CALL FOR PAPERS
Please, send your proposals to info@cinemascope.it
Falsehood and Cinema
When we talk about lies we generally tend to assume that there is an implicit, prescribed and absolute truth and consider the relationship between the truth and the untruth in a purely antithetical way. From an etymological viewpoint, the expression to lie, referred to the act of imagining of inventing something false despite knowing the truth, also puts the relationship Truth/Untruth in a conflict situation. Nevertheless, there is an alternative to this dualistic model of Aristotelian origin: paradoxical logic, which seems to offers a different viewpoint.
The possibility to show one thing and its opposite without necessarily creating an antinomy between the parts had already been conceived in the classical era: paradoxically, everything can be true and false at the same time (paradosso nullo o retorico). The reliability of an assertion, from such a perspective, depends more on the capacity to show an idea among (and with) many possible ideas (all equally true), rather than on the existence of an objective truth set against a non-truth. In this sense, the paradox allows
us to suspend our value judgment in terms of something’s truthfulness or falseness It focuses more on the idea of a contemporary presence. The expression “I am lying” seems to want to tell us the truth, thereby denying however, its actual assumption: while saying that it is lying (admitting the truth: I am lying) at the same time it denies the first statement (admitting the untruth: I am telling the truth). So here a lie does not contradict the truth by excluding it, but rather it merges with it, creating a hybrid heterogeneous idea, in which the border between true and untrue becomes elusive and, even, paradoxical: “I am lying”
Cinema and, more in general, all forms of creative action, can indiscriminately use the truth and/or the untruth without feeling the need to make a clear distinction between the two. In addition to contradicting each other and excluding one another, truth and untruth can also cooperate, merge and get mixed up, creating relational systems which can vary significantly among each other. Depending on the type of existing relationship between truth and untruth the spectator needs to participate in the definition of the film’s discourse, and to test his knowledge and his interpretation skills in various ways.
Cinemascope wants to examine potential ways of interaction between truth and untruth within discursive practices dominated by acts of falsification and/or particularly evident cases of denial. That way we want to exclude contributions based on the relationship between reality and fiction, a topic that, due to the wide range of aspects involved, would require a completely different type of theoretical considerations.
In particular, it is possible to distinguish systems in which:
starting from a certain and known truth the untruth can turn into in a voluntary intended action (play) of which the spectator is aware. Particularly in contemporary cinema we see a rising number of cases in which the use of falsifications (such as the use of archive images in Forrest Gump) is exploited with the intention of enhancing the comical characteristics of the story. A film like Woody Allen’s Zelig makes use of play in the way it asks the spectator the believe and participate, at least during the film, in the creation of a “deceitful” story strengthened by the classical use of a documentary style.
starting from a self-evident truth the untruth can turn into in a voluntary yet occulted action (deceit) of which the spectator remains unaware, even after the end of the film. Unlike in the first case this is where the capacity comes in to use all “discursive forms” which are generally considered to contain a certain level of truthfulness (the use of documents, interviews, a narrating voice, etc.) in an orientated way. The mockumentary genre is based on these assumptions. Its main objective is to let the spectator believe, right up to the end, a story that is absolutely false, but that has been concocted in such a way that it looks credible and coherent (e.g. Forgotten Silver by Peter Jackson, 1995).
in films where the use of tricks and special effects plays a central role, the contemporary presence of true and false seems to reach its peak. In the sets of trick films, particularly In early cinema, for example, the main interest is to use the effect (what the spectator sees on the screen) for the manifestation of an event that really took place. In order to do that it is important to hide the series of technical gimmicks which make the realisation possible and which, actually, constitute the only objective truth. The beheadings, the appearances and disappearances of the characters in Georges Méliès films refer to this form of contemporariness, in which the technical truth, being necessary for the illusory and deceiving effect of the tricks, lives together with it, without opposing itself.
relational systems where the distinction between truth and untruth appears uncertain, precarious or innocent, according to a paradoxical model. This is the case when a truth presented as objective (reality) can be betrayed in an involuntary, accidental or subconscious way and create a deceitful state of perception (darkening). A typical example of this can be found in David Lynch’s work, in which reality constantly eludes all attempt at organisation, continuously contradicting itself.
We welcome contributions that seek to deal with the role of the spectator and/or the enunciator in relation to the systems listed above or which add new and stimulating theoretic developments to the ideas we have proposed about the Aristotelian and paradoxical models.
Information:
!! NEW !!! Deadline for proposals: October 30, 2007
Notice of acceptance of proposals by Cinemascope: November 15, 2007
Reception of articles: December 23, 2007
Max length of articles: max 5000 words
Abstract: 150 words
Issue Editor: Mariangela Fornaro
Editorial Board: Frank Coffey, Massimiliano Gaudiosi
Language: English
Information and contacts: info@cinemascope.it
CALL FOR PAPERS
Please, send your proposals to info@cinemascope.it
Falsehood and Cinema
When we talk about lies we generally tend to assume that there is an implicit, prescribed and absolute truth and consider the relationship between the truth and the untruth in a purely antithetical way. From an etymological viewpoint, the expression to lie, referred to the act of imagining of inventing something false despite knowing the truth, also puts the relationship Truth/Untruth in a conflict situation. Nevertheless, there is an alternative to this dualistic model of Aristotelian origin: paradoxical logic, which seems to offers a different viewpoint.
The possibility to show one thing and its opposite without necessarily creating an antinomy between the parts had already been conceived in the classical era: paradoxically, everything can be true and false at the same time (paradosso nullo o retorico). The reliability of an assertion, from such a perspective, depends more on the capacity to show an idea among (and with) many possible ideas (all equally true), rather than on the existence of an objective truth set against a non-truth. In this sense, the paradox allows
us to suspend our value judgment in terms of something’s truthfulness or falseness It focuses more on the idea of a contemporary presence. The expression “I am lying” seems to want to tell us the truth, thereby denying however, its actual assumption: while saying that it is lying (admitting the truth: I am lying) at the same time it denies the first statement (admitting the untruth: I am telling the truth). So here a lie does not contradict the truth by excluding it, but rather it merges with it, creating a hybrid heterogeneous idea, in which the border between true and untrue becomes elusive and, even, paradoxical: “I am lying”
Cinema and, more in general, all forms of creative action, can indiscriminately use the truth and/or the untruth without feeling the need to make a clear distinction between the two. In addition to contradicting each other and excluding one another, truth and untruth can also cooperate, merge and get mixed up, creating relational systems which can vary significantly among each other. Depending on the type of existing relationship between truth and untruth the spectator needs to participate in the definition of the film’s discourse, and to test his knowledge and his interpretation skills in various ways.
Cinemascope wants to examine potential ways of interaction between truth and untruth within discursive practices dominated by acts of falsification and/or particularly evident cases of denial. That way we want to exclude contributions based on the relationship between reality and fiction, a topic that, due to the wide range of aspects involved, would require a completely different type of theoretical considerations.
In particular, it is possible to distinguish systems in which:
starting from a certain and known truth the untruth can turn into in a voluntary intended action (play) of which the spectator is aware. Particularly in contemporary cinema we see a rising number of cases in which the use of falsifications (such as the use of archive images in Forrest Gump) is exploited with the intention of enhancing the comical characteristics of the story. A film like Woody Allen’s Zelig makes use of play in the way it asks the spectator the believe and participate, at least during the film, in the creation of a “deceitful” story strengthened by the classical use of a documentary style.
starting from a self-evident truth the untruth can turn into in a voluntary yet occulted action (deceit) of which the spectator remains unaware, even after the end of the film. Unlike in the first case this is where the capacity comes in to use all “discursive forms” which are generally considered to contain a certain level of truthfulness (the use of documents, interviews, a narrating voice, etc.) in an orientated way. The mockumentary genre is based on these assumptions. Its main objective is to let the spectator believe, right up to the end, a story that is absolutely false, but that has been concocted in such a way that it looks credible and coherent (e.g. Forgotten Silver by Peter Jackson, 1995).
in films where the use of tricks and special effects plays a central role, the contemporary presence of true and false seems to reach its peak. In the sets of trick films, particularly In early cinema, for example, the main interest is to use the effect (what the spectator sees on the screen) for the manifestation of an event that really took place. In order to do that it is important to hide the series of technical gimmicks which make the realisation possible and which, actually, constitute the only objective truth. The beheadings, the appearances and disappearances of the characters in Georges Méliès films refer to this form of contemporariness, in which the technical truth, being necessary for the illusory and deceiving effect of the tricks, lives together with it, without opposing itself.
relational systems where the distinction between truth and untruth appears uncertain, precarious or innocent, according to a paradoxical model. This is the case when a truth presented as objective (reality) can be betrayed in an involuntary, accidental or subconscious way and create a deceitful state of perception (darkening). A typical example of this can be found in David Lynch’s work, in which reality constantly eludes all attempt at organisation, continuously contradicting itself.
We welcome contributions that seek to deal with the role of the spectator and/or the enunciator in relation to the systems listed above or which add new and stimulating theoretic developments to the ideas we have proposed about the Aristotelian and paradoxical models.
Information:
!! NEW !!! Deadline for proposals: October 30, 2007
Notice of acceptance of proposals by Cinemascope: November 15, 2007
Reception of articles: December 23, 2007
Max length of articles: max 5000 words
Abstract: 150 words
Issue Editor: Mariangela Fornaro
Editorial Board: Frank Coffey, Massimiliano Gaudiosi
Language: English
Information and contacts: info@cinemascope.it
|