Re: RAT Collage

[Pwpny@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/21/1999 9:07:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
audiemccall@yahoo.com writes:

<< First, I'm not sure I agree that the camera IS a  character-- certainly 
not in every film. And even allowing your point, certainly the audience in 
theatre is as much-- if not more-- of an active character than  the camera is 
in film, i.e. an audience can and does change the performance each and every 
time. The  camera merely records a picture. This process can be inflected, 
but ultimately, since the camera has no
consciousness of its own (Buddhists bear with me) it can't CAUSE this 
inflection. >>

I was talking about this just the other day. I was watching the TV show The 
West Wing (a show which is overly sentimental and simple about some things 
but has a grand Shakespearean quality at times that I can't help but love - 
thank you, Aaron Sorkin), and they showed, not a collage, but a MONTAGE, 
intercutting between two different scenes, with no dialogue, just music. I 
said that I wish theatre could accomplish that same feeling (sappy and 
sentimental as it often is). Sure, I've seen montages on stage, but, as an 
audience member, I'm always aware that the snapshot I just saw on stage right 
is still there, just in the dark, while I'm watching the well-lit action down 
stage left. All of this to say that the camera does more than just record a 
picture, it FOCUSES the audience's attention in a way that's very hard to do 
with live work - not impossible, but very hard. Maybe it's not a character, 
merely a vessel, but it does seem to function as some kind of melding of 
director/cinematographer/writer/character.

I do love the more pro-active role the audience plays in the theatre, of 
course, but occasionally have camera-envy.

Catherine Porter
Peculiar Works Project, NYC