Peter T Chattaway, on 05 September 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:
: C.R.'s point of view is emphasized every time they do that live-action prologue/epilogue.
Well, to a point. We see the stuffed dolls, sure; but the prologue/epilogue in these films generally centres on a book, which C.R. did NOT write.
The prologue/epilogues involve a room, stuffed animals, and a book that C.R. did not write, but which was read to C.R., and is opened to us and expanded upon in ways very much like C.R. might have imagined while his father told him stories or read to him.
: That's the whole bloody point. In the film, the Backson is imagined neither by A.A. nor by C.R., but by Owl. This is not Owl's story; Owl is a character, not a narrator; what gives Owl the power to bring the Backson to life?
Well put. I guess, extrapolating from comments already made in this thread, that Jeff would say that C.R. gave Owl that power. Or that A.A. gave C.R.-the-character the power to give Owl that power. Or something like that.
The Backson is initially conceived authorially by A.A. (as a nonexistent creature in an imaginary world) and diegetically by A.A.'s Owl (as a potentially real creature in A.A.'s fictional world). He is imagined, perhaps, first of all by the real C.R. listening to the real A.A. (perhaps initially not entirely sure that there is no Backson even in the world of the story), and later by countless real children reading or being read to from A.A.'s stories (ditto).
He is then visualized by the Disney filmmakers developing A.A.'s story (first of all reading it, with an eye, we may hope, to how they had been read by generations of readers), and diagetically in the film world by the Disney filmmakers' Owl, a creature who is based on A.A.'s and C.R.'s imagination and on the stories as told by A.A. to C.R. and read by countless readers since.
Finally, in a jokey postscript, the Backson is depicted by the Disney filmmakers as a real creature within the world of the story -- a story in which characters have all along been conspicuously interacting with a narrator and with the physical environment of their own storybook context, with letters and words and paragraphs and a spine of a book as real as objects in their own world. The diegetic blurriness of the story is well established, going back to Disney's earliest Pooh cartoons and to a degree to the original A.A. stories.
In short, the movies have made no secret of the fact that they depict characters who exist simultaneously as (a) anthropomorphic animals living in a Hundred Acre Wood, [b.] anthropomorphized versions of stuffed animals in a boy's bedroom, and © characters in a storybook being read by a narrator to a putative listener. The role of the listener's imagination as well as that of the author in the visualization of the stories is not a far-fetched consideration.
mrmando, on 05 September 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:
I don't have a problem with your earlier analysis; it is based on Reasonable Assumptions, which will do in a pinch when we can't establish propositions with Absolute Certainty. It still doesn't account for the Backson suddenly putting on flesh and walking among the animals.
See above. Hope that helps.
P.S. Aside to the admins: If we could kill this smilie forever ------------>
<------------ I don't think anyone would cry. How many (a) item, (
item, © item lists have been marred by this automatic character parsing?
Edited by SDG, 05 September 2011 - 09:28 PM.