Does (nostalgia) prove or disprove Sontag's point that "Photographs transcribed in a film cease to be collectible objects, as they are when served up in books"? (5) If so, or if not, why? Explain using specific examples from the film.
(nostalgia) enforces Sontag’s opinion about
photographs transcribed in film. This is because the director controls the time
period in which the image is presented to us denying the viewer any possession of
the photograph unlike an image in a book which the viewer is able to contemplate
for any duration that they choose. In (nostalgia)
the photographs are shown to us for the time it takes for them to be destroyed,
the audience has no choice in the matter of time. This further emphasised by
the destruction of the images, we are made more aware of how we have no possession
over these images.
Another
reason for the distinction between photographs in film and in a book is the
physical distance. A book can be touched, stored or even destroyed according to
the owner’s decision. However in a film the photograph is shown to us from a
distance, the viewer can do nothing to the photograph. Again, this refers to
the idea of ownership. Only a physical object can be claimed but film shows us
an image of the desired object and so the object is no longer collectible. For
example, in (nostalgia) we are forced
to watch each of the images get destroyed and are helpless to do anything about
it.
Photographs
transcribed in film cease to become collectible objects as they can be watched
over and over again. Whilst photographs in books may be replicated or copied
each new copy is still a photograph which can be collected, but in film the
case is different. I think that because in a film the photograph is only an
image within that film that it has already been replicated, in addition to the
distance which has already been created between the viewer and the image through
time and physical dimensions, the photograph has lost its value in some way. It
is no longer worth collecting.
No comments:
Post a Comment