On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:52:26 -0800 (PST), Cory
<my_wheel_life@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>But other shows have continuity "editors" or people for just this
>exact reason. It's the whole point of why they're hired... to keep
>tabs on issues affecting continuity.
No show is going to be 100% perfect. Heck, not even plays in live
theater are 100% perfect -- that's what dramaturges are for. You
parse the dialoge -- if you get contradictory information, the
dramaturge points it out and collaborates with the director (or in TV,
the showrunner and/or episode writer) to find a solution that is
ultimately the showrunner/writer's final call to make.
Continuity editing (or timeline tracking) is one of their
responsibilities in live theater, script supervisors in TV are the
equivalent and IMO should be considered dramaturges.
IMO, given LG's dramaturgical skill -- her MFA in theater defines her
not just as a classically trained actress but also one who by
definition of being a classically trained actress also someone
possessing formidable dramaturge skills (and note that prestigious
writer/director Craig Lucas, her director in Birds of America, praised
her for her dramaturgical skills on that movie) -- it is quite likely
that the contradictory information in these two episodes in question
was probably cited by someone in Amy-land, whether a staff writer, LG,
another actor, etc., at some point either during or shortly after the
filming of the latter episode in question. When such errors are NOT
addressed, it's IMO at the very LEAST as likely that the
showrunner/writer decided to not address the "error" due to the
implications of what such contradictory information says about the
conflict in perceptions and/or motivations between the characters
supplying the information.
Moreover, it goes like this:
Dialogue is a relatively weak source of continuity. Dialogue can be
contradicted by other characters or more concrete souces of
information within the structure of the story -- flashbacks, printed
material, computer files, headstones or actions that directly
contradict the assertion being made.
EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL DIALOGUE OR EXISTENCE OF CONTRADICTORY DIALOGUE
IS BASED IN WRITER ERROR, the persistence of such contradictory
information is in general not considered to be an error unless
otherwise acknowledged to be so. In cases where dialogue contradicts
dialogue, even if the contradictory dialogue is noted several episodes
or years later, neither of the conflicting dialogue is necessarily
incorrect and instead considered by default to be characters with
differing interpretations and/or perceptions. Such a character
conflict is automatically subtext at the moment such a conflict in
dialogue comes into existence. Also in such cases, which
interpretation is "more" "correct" depends on which character is
****trayed and/or perceived as the more reliable, "objective," or
"accurate" observer. Unless there's a tie, in which case, the tie is
often the point.
Yes, this often means that the writer is intending there to be no
official resolution to the question of such contradictory information.
In this way, IMO it's accurate to opine that the writers like to ****
with the viewers/readers minds by engendering discussion.
IOW, it's not just Lost's Team Darlton that do stuff like this and
it's not confined in the least to science fiction (Lost, The X-Files)
and/or political thrillers (The X-Files), it's a creative choice that
can and will be made by writers regardless of genre.
Yes, I'm saying that even if it started as an error, it's not an error
unless the showrunner/writer says it is. Until/unless it's confirmed
as an error, it's nothing more or less than subtextual
characterization.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
|
