• On Sparshott’s ‘Vision and Dream in the Cinema’

      Glickman, Jack; The College at Brockport (1971-01-01)
      I agree with much of Professor Sparshott’s argument. I would add that when film is not taken as a recording of events that occurred, it is taken as a recording of events that were contrived; and that it is taken as a recording entails that no film is taken as present time. When we are caught up in viewing a film, we are primarily concerned with the story. Our fundamental concern is not with the film’s space and time, but with certain characters in human situations. Our main concern is with human experience.
    • The Conventions of Film: A Response to Professor Sparshott

      Rabkin, Gerald; Rutgers University (1971-01-01)
      The difficulty with judging Professor Sparshott’s analogy between our dream experience and the experience in film lies in the extreme subjectivity of our dream experience. Perhaps an entire film seems dreamlike, but the judgment tends to be intensely subjective.
    • Vision and Dream in the Cinema

      Sparshott, F. E.; Victoria College, University of Toronto (1971-01-01)
      There are many ways in which filmgoing is like dreaming. The space and time of the film experience are distorted and illusory. For instance, one has the sense of being spatially present on the filmed scene. However, if we really accepted a change in the camera viewpoint as a change in our own position, rapid intercutting between different viewpoints would be intolerable. This suggests that in film our sense of space is somehow bracketed or held in suspense. Likewise, we take what we see in the film to be happening in the present, yet we tolerate jumps backward and forward in time. On reflection, these peculiarities of the film experience are extremely odd. Our ability to enjoy them testifies to the mind’s tendency to smooth things over, interpreting whatever confronts it in terms of the simplest pattern.