"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 >