"As it happened, many people still simply did not understand how a movie
could have someone die in a scene, then have them alive in the next."
 
But this is merely "cinema language"... developed most expertly more than
seventy years ago by
the father of montage - Sergei Eisenstein (Pound's aesthetic soul-mate, or
one of them)... as for
the so-called revolutionary idea of a character being dead in one scene and
alive in the next... and
audiences NOT understanding it (!!!!) how did audiences manage the Bill
Holden character
in Sunset Boulevard (?)... a guy who starts the film dead AND narrates
it!!!!
 
 
Stoneking
 
 
 
>
> >>> Jay Anania <[log in to unmask]> 08/31 7:58 AM >>>
> In a message dated 8/31/99 2:27:53 AM, you wrote:
>
> <<For all that, the movie Pulp Fiction, for example, worked in a kind of
> simple prismic or ideogrammic way. I tend to think it would not have been
> produced as it was without Pound or his Cantos coming first. And lots of
> people liked that movie. Maybe the modern world is slowly becoming more
> Poundian. But the emphasis is on slowly.>>
>
> I think that people liked PULP FICTION because it was silly and violent, a
> combination that seemed to appeal to many (not me).  It is not more
Poundian
> than any other narrative film, EACH of which is constructed, by
convention,
> in a  'prismic or ideogrammic way'.  I would add that what this viewer
> experienced as the sophomoric tone of PULP FICTION was not especially
> Pound-like.
> Best,
> Jay Anania
>