"(...) when I narrate something through stories, I narrate something that is set within the chronological time-space, but that moves within the time-space of a fictional time" (A. Giostri)
But I, as a disabled person who lives the reality of daily brain-fog, and symptoms that make me experience time differently - my own crip time - I wonder: do we need to tell a story chronologically, or make it extremely clear to the audience when we are using time gaps, moments where Cartesian logic is not followed? Or is this a choice made a long time ago, when art took the molds established as more connected to reality measured through Cartesian theory? I remember a film I watched many years ago called Amnesia, where the main character had short-memory amnesia. The plot developed so that what was happening became clear after some time - not in the exact scene of the event. In other films - Donnie Darko, for example - the sense of the film, as well as the notion of the time narrative, were changing (for me) as I re-watched the film, my perception of it being very different the third time around than the first. If we consider that cinema is something that has been "fixed" (that is: the film I saw for the first time is the same film, from the same recording edition, the first time I watched it) and that, even so - even without being there that "magic" of the present moment of theatre and dance that allows one performance to differ from the other, even if it is the same script - what I watched of Donnie Darko the first time was different the third time, we can think that the notion of time established by the narrative of the story depends not only on who tells it but also on who receives it.
Comments