She is not seen with him untill the second scene of the film; were it to be a poem, she would presently be either it's only speaker, or the observations of it's only speaker, this allowing for a shift of metaphorical conceit, where her observations would be later represented as being co-present with his.
Rewrite all below the above line:
It precluded any imaginary conversations that he would have entertained having had with her in advance, albeit, there had been recently been less occasion of it, there being more brief moments of solitude given only to meditation than occurrences of his wondering what he was going to say to her. What may have been synaesthetic was the intuitiveness which different modalities of subjectivity would find each other, the lyric of passion and what becomes implicit within reflection; there is an ekphrasis within the descriptiveness of soliloquies, quietly appreciated into interiority, a sense that everything were entirely free, indirect discourse.
Offscreen sound; but there is no screen; track back discovery from an erotic tight close shot, there is no camera; it can be anything before, during or after cutting away from either her, him, or them both; it is temporality as a blank canvass. It is provisionally the sound of the telephone while they are in bed making love or the door during breakfast seldom expected. Her framing of the shot/ his framing of the shot as counter outward regard, interlocking look, randomly alternating intersubject positions- dialouge centered reversals. The camera as author has relegated character as spectator.
REVISE SECTION BELOW IN PROGRESS ON LINE during 2015
She is not seen with him untill the second scene of the film. After the introductory scene, which is primarilly a nude glamour character study of her in one room, a drawing room, or living room, and, which, having had been being filmed as though being begun in progress, is concluded by her decision to either shower then or to shower after having entered a nearby, adjoining bedroom, there is a compilation scene of exterior shots of her and her lover during several shot reverse shots, bracketted from successive conversations to compensate for the lack of an establishing shot and for the lack of the erotic suture of the look with shot counter shot.
To begin the film, she is alone in her apartment. The bedroom is introduced by an autonomous insert shot of her eyes, displaced from the diegetic of what appears to be it could only be from that same evening, with every possibility of it being a conceptually linked image of her during fantasy, the body movement and reiterations of non-movement transcendent, and, while bringing the shots into relationships of linkage, although felt more intuitively while enclosed as a subject object polarity, an introspective prophecy of what wouldn't transpire untill the following night. Whether it is a shot independendent of what is to occur and a non-diegetic insert used to explore female gratification or a nearly identical instance flashforwarded within the present scene, it is it an extreme close up of her eyes, eyelids and eyelashes during the latter middle of sexual intercourse. If it is to reappear later in the scene, possibly contained within adjacent shots of her in continuity from varying cameraplacements, while the direction in which she is looking is kept fairly steady, it is uncertain as to whether it is part of a single shot sequence of longer duration not yet foreshadowed as being from nearer towrd the end of the film, or included in a series of ectasy shots that could, in effect, be intercut with tightly framed shots of her climaxing, or of her approaching plateau not during intercourse. In its not belonging to a spatial temporal continuum in regard to the aesthetic structures, and erotic substructures, structural unity being reliant upon the image and the objectification of fantasy as anticipatory of casual relationships, plot and character are developed as there being an involvement that has, dramaticlly and thematiclly, already taken significance and its transpostion is of the desire for it to deepen. The depiction of her lover as character is left to the observation of the intricacies of her character, particularly as an embodiment of erotic emotion and that being their interaction, the presentation of his character only being through her specific soliloquy fantasy and speculation or thoughtful rememberance. As of yet, it is as not altogether ascertainable whether he that evening had or would have switched their sexual position, or positions, during the act of lovemaking, or if he had earlier that evening given her a massage, more often than not one that would only from her shoulders to her lower back but reaching to the back of her legs, and had entered her while she was on her stomach, or more seldom, in that she rarely would put a pillow beneath her, while she was on her knees- it may have been that she had woken him before it had become morning. There are shots in the first scene that are repeated later in the film and yet there are no shots repeated during the film from earlier than the first scene.
As story and discourse can surface as voyuerism, the requirement of a narrator that impinges upon dramatic action as object and as the relation between object and the semiological structure of point of view, the ensuing interrelated stanzas, of dialouge scenes as taken together, although recounting their conversations as not only being intertwined referentially by nearly repetitive or responsorial phrases and snatches, but that as the wordplay of lovers, if only to express sentimentality, within the interconnected variations individually allluding to the two becoming more intimate,each occaisionally paraphrasing or quoting the other, are, if thought of as assembled into montage, filmed out of continuity. The added requirement of subject identification for discourse and diegesis brings a temporal transparencey, or transversal of interruption, to the third person viewer-viewfinder positioning in that the voyeur synthesizes a diegetic similarity rather than continuity of image; there is a narcissistic auto-erotic appropriation of image in that she is an object beheld, beheld by a compliment.
Each series of shots having had been being a different occaision of their having accompanied each other, the multi-scene dialogues are in fact are not necessarily from the same eighteen, or seemingly twenty, hour period nor are they necessarily specifically from either morning, afternoon or the magic hour of evening, if there is in fact that particular hour that lends a three dimensional, color layered texture that as referent compliments earlier plasticities within the film's syntagmatic ordering of images, and yet the structure within the image keeps them as being filmed in the same location. To account for any multiplicity of meaning within suture or within any interplay of conceivable femininities that would construct a discursive sexuality, the length of each alternating dialouge line accomodates their having already talked before having arrived at that particular spatial location while the scene keeps the two as seen from any available temporal postion, that bringing an authenticity, if not a metaphoricity, to their seemingly still holding hands while having stopped to finish more of their dialouge, their having presumably having earlier been at a restaurant or movie. Whereas in the first scene of the film there is a primacy of the visual, during the second scene of the film, in that the references made during their dialogue can only be seen linguisticly, the action taking place in an enclosed spatiality limited to one specificity of multiple camera setups, the series of shots comprised of stationary interrelated shot counter, shot reverse shot, each facial expression, each nuance of emotion is an exchange of denoument, the visuality of the offscreen past an interaction of structure with the conversation of the present and the description of past intimacies that the two lovers gradually provide through a look into each other by outwardly looking at and regarding their earlier actions; what is offscreen is the couple visually having been in bed together, their making love together visually in a temporality referred to subltely only through the words that they share- we can only look at their looking backward and inward, as though it an interior sphere of address and reception wainting to be articulated in later in the future scenes.
"I could have met you at the gallery. Or in the musuem courtyard."
"There were periodicals in the reference library I needed. Thanks, it was only in order to compare old magazine covers to oil paintings."
"There's supposed to be a lunar eclipse tonight."
"She made mention of it earlier when I told her that I had to see you."
The two lovers, either intentionally neglecting to directly remind each other how they first met because it had been after nightfall, or from sentimentality deepening it by allowing a greater complexity to their dialougue exchange aquired over time as though during game where there might be a door to the building in fact out of courtesy left for her to open, there being the possibility of his carrying something for her, there being the certainty that once inside he would allow her to rest, are filmed alone together with varying scene contrasts . There is still the possiblity that she had seen him before they had met and that she had been watching him for an indeterminate amount of time. As each cut to their again being alone together, if filmed where they can be seen where they may or may not be being watched, is subtley at a different light meter level with different metaphoric, or thematic values to the lighting, there being a subsequent autonomy to the camera in its creating a shot linkage between the images involved during the inscription of shadowplay; they may or may not be in chronological narrative structure grammaticlly, or stanzaiclly. The shot, and its subject within the frame as the two trade questions through either dialouge or the implications of staring-listening, being a unit of discourse , what is linear, linguistic associations interrelating meanings poeticly, the particular scene during each successive reframing is the disclosure of the romantic.
Throughout the entire first scene of the film, it is that we become aware that by all accounts she will be reintroduced to the viewer later in the film, which on screen without our viewing the rushes occurs at the beginning of the next scene, and that brings an interest in how her lover will be introduced as a characetr to the spectator, her being more omniscient than the spectator who is as it so happens relegated to the camera's selection of detail. If in fact she knows that she will not see him untill morning at the earliest, provided there isn't the abstract times switches involving a thrid or fourth scene that the rushes allow, the spectator is kept by and large unaware as to whether he will enter during the first scene, so much so to where it is still uncercertain whether he will let himself in while she is asleep; the characters are quickly recirculated into the second scene and only as having had been being been together with each other before the first scene, only as two needing only to be alone together. During the first scene, the camera replaces, or becomes symbolic of , the mirror that is her theater mask, one which she has left in the bedroom or the bathroom- her eyeline not only is watched by the camera, but she is also in front of the fact a solitude that reflects back upon her, a pool that reflects the image of only one swan, one swan desiring to be seen not only be the mirror that has become a mask, but by the other, the need to be made complete. Within her thoughts, he is watching her from whereever he might happen to be- in the light she waits to be cloaked by evening.
I has also written, and am constantly revising webpages on Film history and film criticism:
Author' note: apparently there is a new contemporary novel of quality already published under the title Veil of Night. This title can be only tentative.