From: Lundgren (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2006 - 16:05:17 PDT
Cari Machet wrote: "some 'films' use both digital and film"
This is very true. Especially if we look at hollywood ("movies" that is).
The modern blockbuster is a mixture of digital and filmic element (why should the projection form decide over the production form?).
Björn Lundgren
Sweden
----- Original Message -----
From: Cari Machet
To: email suppressed
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: labels
words are oxymorons not persons
some 'films' use both digital and film
- come on now -
plus she was 'having fun' w/ telling individuals how to/to not label (speak of)
themselves as makers - not films
IHHO
c
On 6/27/06, Pip Chodorov <email suppressed> wrote:
I don't think it's that complicated.
A film is a film and a DVD of a film is a DVD of a film.
A video is a video and a DVD of a video is a DVD of a video.
And a kinescope (on film) of a video is a film of a video, etc.
A reproduction is a reproduction.
Hope that's not too Gertrude Stein for you.
We have no trouble calling musicians
acoustic-guitar players or electric-guitar
players, then there are those who go back and
forth, then the occasional electric-guitar
players who do a special "unplugged" performance,
and then there are those who play electric
guitars with no amplifiers while they're sitting
on the toilet, acoustically. There is no
confusion, and the world is quite happy with the
words that we use. So why should "digital film"
cause such an uproar? Obviously the person who
says "digital film" is an oxy-moron.
-Pip Chodorov
>This is a very interesting discussion. :)
>
>I think that the term "film" is far beyond the material context.
>
>Otherwise we would have a really complex
>situation when a DVD-version (or VHS, LD, HD...)
>of a film wouldn't be a film. Surely it _is_
>only a re-presentation (and a manipulated one,
>more or less depending on the format), but that
>is what cinema has allways been (and there's
>allways a certain degree of manipulation).
>
>Björn Lundgren
>Sweden
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "k. a.r." <email suppressed>
>To: < email suppressed>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:16 PM
>Subject: labels
>
>>hey there. somewhere in the barrage of posts,
>>somebody wrote about not just calling ourselves
>>filmmakers anymore.
>>I think, if you work in film, call yourself a filmmmaker.
>>
>>if you work in video, call yourself whatever
>>you think applies, but DON'T call yourself a
>>filmmaker.
>>
>>One of my co-workers described himself as a
>>"Digital Cinematographer" , and stated
>>adamently that he was NOT a filmmaker because
>>he didnt work with film.
>>
>>Myself personally, I like to tell people I am an experimental exhibitionist.
>>
>>(haha, but I really do tell people that......)
>>
>>
>>
>>Kristie Reinders, B.F.A.
>>Director of Cinematography, Electric Visions
>>Curator and Head Projectionist, Electric Mural Project
>>The Mission, San Francisco, CA
>>415-863-1154
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________
>>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.