6:41 isnt it first level=camera and second level=character in the text? Without identifing firstly with camera/image/screen, spectator can not identify with a character.
Yes I kind of think you're right. I remember coming back to the passage and thinking I had gotten it mixed up. But when I did return to the passage, I remember finding the wording confusing. After all, it's really Christian Metz's use of first level and second level identification in film that is referenced much more, and for Metz it is very clear that fist level = the camera/image and second level = character. If you're reading the Baudry and see a clear articulation of this, please do paste in a comment!
ah ok i see now that i had reproduced the passage in the video. the phrase "the character portrayed as a center of secondary identifications" makes it sound like Metz's primary and secondary ID. the sentence that makes me confused is what follows: the second level permits the appearance of the first..." Can you tell what is meant by "'first' and 'second' level, and which is the referent of 'that is the transcendental subject..."?
@@filmandmediastudieschannel i read this article 20 years ago and maybe because of reading Metz at the same time or maybe my teacher misleaded or inhibited me.
@@filmandmediastudieschannel now I read the previous and next paragraphs with footnotes... Very very ambigious or "intellectual" French way of writing... Anyway, i think there is nothing about identification with characters. Level 1 is about seeing images, that are shot for an "imaginary" spectator/transcendental subject Level 2. Keyword here is"repetition", the last word in the previous paragraph. Spectator sees images in projector that are shot with camera/looker for Transpectator so what spectator sees is his own Look. in fact it looks like, elementary school maths, basic Transitivity but they write as if they are writing a puzzle, not to be understood. Maybe it is better to read original French. But how much can it be meaningful to theorize with Neo-Marxist, Husserlian and Lacanian in the same article.
You are such a gem for all of the film studies community here on youtube, thank you for your great series!
This series was absolutely great. Your explanations and examples are very clear and concise :)
thank you! glad it was helpful.
Watched the whole 3 parts, amazing Job, thank you.
Greetings from Colombia.
thanks!
6:41 isnt it first level=camera and second level=character in the text? Without identifing firstly with camera/image/screen, spectator can not identify with a character.
Yes I kind of think you're right. I remember coming back to the passage and thinking I had gotten it mixed up. But when I did return to the passage, I remember finding the wording confusing. After all, it's really Christian Metz's use of first level and second level identification in film that is referenced much more, and for Metz it is very clear that fist level = the camera/image and second level = character. If you're reading the Baudry and see a clear articulation of this, please do paste in a comment!
ah ok i see now that i had reproduced the passage in the video. the phrase "the character portrayed as a center of secondary identifications" makes it sound like Metz's primary and secondary ID. the sentence that makes me confused is what follows: the second level permits the appearance of the first..." Can you tell what is meant by "'first' and 'second' level, and which is the referent of 'that is the transcendental subject..."?
@@filmandmediastudieschannel i read this article 20 years ago and maybe because of reading Metz at the same time or maybe my teacher misleaded or inhibited me.
@@filmandmediastudieschannel now I read the previous and next paragraphs with footnotes... Very very ambigious or "intellectual" French way of writing... Anyway, i think there is nothing about identification with characters. Level 1 is about seeing images, that are shot for an "imaginary" spectator/transcendental subject Level 2. Keyword here is"repetition", the last word in the previous paragraph. Spectator sees images in projector that are shot with camera/looker for Transpectator so what spectator sees is his own Look. in fact it looks like, elementary school maths, basic Transitivity but they write as if they are writing a puzzle, not to be understood. Maybe it is better to read original French. But how much can it be meaningful to theorize with Neo-Marxist, Husserlian and Lacanian in the same article.
Dude, You're awesome
Dont study too much Marxism and post-1968 French film theory, folks. Hollywood will lose its magic...maybe thats a good thing ;)