> Actually to be more precise, I was thinking that CO is in the same mode > as Sunset Blvd ... which it is, but neither of them satisfies Gene's > original request, because they're in *past tense*. I haven't seen The > Opposite of Sex so I can't tell if it belongs.
It's grammatically past tense too, though like a lot of narration in fiction it's restricted. That is, though the narrator would seem to be speaking from a point in time well beyond the events being depicted, they rarely reveal any 'spoilers' any sense that they know what's coming. (Gene has clarified that his interest is not in fiction at all, but we can still talk about it...) > What characteristics might distinguish a *first person present tense* > voice *NOT* to be an "interior monolog"? I mean to say, couldn't *any* > of the first be interpreted as the second? Well, there's two different things there. My little four-part distinction didn't consider the question of tense. So if you add all of the different temporal relationships direct address might have to the unfolding events (which themselves might or might not be in chronological order) there'd be a lot more categories. But to answer the specific question, 'first person, present tense' would NOT be 'interior monolog' in any case where we see the character speaking. That is, what 'interior monolog' is interior to is the characters' mind. This does not necessarily mean the characters' are 'talking to themselves.' Alex is not addressing an actual group of Droogs. He's imagining an audience. But it's not clear where and when he is doing so, or whether this space/time is within the diegesis or the character has been plucked out of his fictionsl world to some meta-position via 'the miracle of cinems'. In 'Taxi Driver' Travis's monologues would seem to be entries he's recording into a diary -- (which makes them a mixture of present and past tense, FWIW). So, anyway, Ferris Beuller and Moonlighting are not interior monologs, nor are Shakespearean asides and so forth. Not that this distinction necessarily makes a difference. Exterior monologs may serve the same function as interior monologues -- obviously traditional theater doesn't employ disembodied voice-over, so characters may speak their thoughts as a convention. Hamlet's soliloquy is external diegetic. In contrast, Ronnie's monolog at the beginning of Act 2 of The House of Blue Leaves is external non-diegetic because he is breaking the fourth wall and speaking to us as an audience. There's not much external-monolog in fiction films, since voice-over is easier to do and a well established convention. So deviating from that convention, as Ferris Bueller does, signifies something or serves some additional function, though I don't know what, whether there's any consistency from film to film, or whether it's particularly important in the big scheme of things. _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
