Lit. speed and film speed

[MantaRay at aol.com]

Pat, ole buddy:

>. In a film, say 
>     Stalker, the scene takes X ammount of time. If you and I were to see 
>     this film, the scene would take as long for me as for you.


No way. Stalker took longer for me than anyone else I know. I'm not lying
when I say I watched the last half on fast forward. This has something to
with your next assertion...
       
>     The main problem I have with discussion about films vs books is that we

>     always seem to focus on the narrative part of the films. Films (for me)
are
>     not about narrative but about visuals.
     
There are, in film as in lit, several components to the work: narrative,
visuals, sound, etc. A viewer latches onto one or many of these parts just as
s/he may latch onto plot rather characterization, or style (diction, perhaps)
rather than event in a novel. These are variables put into place by the
director or author. You latch onto the visuals, I look for narrative content
(at least when the visuals, as in Stalker, lag on for hours). But we have a
difference of opinion here. My main point is that time is not the chief
marker of creation or viewing, that is, just because a director says this
scene will take 5 minutes does not mean it will "be" five minutes to
everybody. It may be 1 or, in Tarkovsky's case, 3,000.

MantaRay