Saturday, February 3, 2007

recounting an IFC movie isn't always easy

we rented an IFC film yesterday called "unknown" starring some recognizable faces, like greg kinnear and one of the matrix characters. as many IFC movies can be, "unknown" was a slow starter and a slow finisher. no fast hollywood gun scenes or car chases. it was an ideal fall asleep and tell me about it later kind of movie. and the perfect setting for a retelling!

the movie is a little confusing already, so while nick was retelling it, i had several points of confusion. even the characters in the movie are unknown to themselves (everyone succumbs to inhaling a chemical that results in temporary memory loss). so as nick was retelling the story to me, i felt more compelled to pay attention to him--more than usual. i can usually surf the net while he's telling me a story, but i had to pay attention to this one. when listening to the retelling, i was either saying, "ok" or asking a clarification question. if i had seen the whole movie like nick, i would have been a more active participant, but then i guess i wouldn't need a retelling. i think it would be interesting to see nick tell someone else about the movie with me present. the dynamics of the retelling would be different and even newly interpreted.

retelling a movie that's become, in a sense, static because it's been recorded on film, as opposed to a retelling of an event between two active parties not recorded, poses some good questions about the nature of stories and their evolution with successive interpretations. movies can be retold or reinvented, but then there's always that hard copy of the material to revert back to. on the other hand, retelling an event that might have happened to me stands the test of memory and language. with no literate recording, it becomes a fleeting and changing product. it's amazing that cultures that used to (and still do) rely on oral history were able to pass down their stories with precision. not to say that they weren't reinvented each time themselves but that there was almost a reverence for the story and its details that changing them might of been seen as a defilement. oral cultures take great care in the details. while recalling the movie, instead of recalling some of the minute details, nick would insert, "and whatever" or "you know" in places that he felt weren't important. in oral cultures, these "and whatever" or "you know" places hold a place of importance that we don't recognize.

i am learning how to add sound bytes to my page and want you all to be able to listen to them, so as soon as i can get a little more tech savvy, i'll do that. in the meantime, i added links of everyone's pages to mine.

1 comment:

kurstin blue said...

I really enjoyed reading about how you related your boyfriend's retelling of the movie plot to the oral traditions we read about this week. The spectator's involvement in the performance _does_ affect the performance itself, just as the context of the storytelling does. Your boyfriend was telling a story that was unfamiliar to you, so you were less of an active participant and more total spectator, trying to take in all the details that would help the story make sense to you.