Is the person who brings the narration to life the same as the author of the film?
I’m a bit confused, because I’m left to believe that narration is brought about when knowledge is unevenly distributed and this is when there is a disturbance in the field of knowledge. So I feel as if the the authorship or the produced narration isn’t produced by the spectator. Or that the authorship is helped. And part of that helping is the editing. So the authorship is controlled? But this means that the viewer doesn’t have all the information needed to narrate? We can’t get all the information, because things like surprise or suspense goes out the door. The viewer is being lead to a specific end. But if this is so then how can I read *Invasion of the Body Snatchers* the way I do?
I don’t think that the camera is the one that does the disturbing. I’m not sold, because the camera cannot control. McFarlane says that the camera can be the camera person or director, etc. But is the disturbance produced from the camera or in the person?
The viewer has previous knowledge from music, to previous scenes, etc which goes into the current. I watch Law and Order: SVU and I’ve seen episodes where I know what’s going to happen before the detectives find the answers, but I’m almost always a little off. I get the feeling that the “fun” is getting information that will solve the case, but to keep me coming back, the narration must have a twist of some sort. This test the knowledge I’ve come with from my own experience, from other procedural shows, and from the episode I’m watching. I’m kept off balanced and that where the pleasure comes from from watching the episode. But am I the author of what I’m seeing? If not, then am I a passive receiver of the narration? Or am I included in the narration just so that I can feel that pleasure from watching the show?