you don't fetishize unless you've already reduced the thing you're fetishizing to an object.

Can't you do it to reflect that the thing is fetishised by the POV you're trying to convey?

What ita said.

Can't you do it to reflect that the thing is fetishised by the POV you're trying to convey?

I don't know -- can you think of a (different) example? I certainly never saw any other point at which the film looked critically at the characters; rather, it seemed to endorse them, and by extension, their viewpoint, wholeheartedly. If the film had really meant to separate itself from the characters' viewpoint, I think there would have been more instances of critical distance.

It's not my experience that visuals can easily do that, portray something without endorsing it, without specific delineations of "now this is his POV" and "now this isn't". Like, B&W, or different film stock, or flashbacks. I think it's something that's harder to do in visuals than in, say, words, because people tend to assume that they are seeing "the truth", unless they are powerfully cued otherwise.

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on its attempt or failure there. And I will have to spend today searching for examples more concrete than "Bill is the one that thinks Superman is the identity and Clark the costume, not QT."

However, it seems like a very simple premise to me, which is probably why I'm having a hard idea finding an example. My basic reaction to the idea of making a POV movie is "well, sure."

I don't actually need to see a contrast to believe it's a limited POV, and I don't believe that mere presentation is endorsement.

I never saw BHD, unfortunately.

Hurray for Hayden's hate-on.

(Zoidberg) Hurray! (/Z)

Consider something like HBO's Deadwood in contrast to Stone. Both are attempting to convey the same sort of Hobbesian "people are shitty to each other" message, both are interested in presenting their stories as a form of revisionist history, and both are focused on macho, powerful men. But Deadwood manages to do all this with a sense of subtlety and nuanced presentation (not to mention a healthy appreciation for women) that should leave Stone cowering under his bed. There's plenty of other tough-guy directors who've managed to balance out their macho issues with some real emotion (I used Deadwood because its creator is a right-wing, law-and-order tough guy like Stone). It just kills me that Stone, who is completely in thrall to his own macho self-image, can a) make movies in the first place and b) receive acclaim for his hackery. But I'll shut up now, because I'm ranting.

To use another war example, it's the way the French ship was treated in "Master & Commander." We barely see it, or we see it from far away, which is how our sailors see it. There are no scenes to show us the humanity or the indiviuality of the French--they get less screen time than Somali civilians. I don't think the film is saying the French sailors are less human than Aubrey's crew, just that they are the Enemy and the Unknown...to them.

(I used Deadwood because its creator is a right-wing, law-and-order tough guy like Stone)

Didn't Stone make the movie Salvador? I always thought he was a militant lefty.

(thank god for Robin)

I don't actually need to see a contrast to believe it's a limited POV, and I don't believe that mere presentation is endorsement.

Ah, see, you and I are opposites on these two principles. Presentation without conflict is the very definition of endorsement, in my mind; and unless the director wants me to call him "limited", I need clear markers of when the limited POV is in use and when it is not.

Didn't Stone make the movie Salvador? I always thought he was a militant lefty.

Yeah, it occured to me that he may vote left -- I really don't know -- but his view of the world, as reflected through his movies, seems reactionary. Maybe he's a Stalinist.