From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 15:24:03 PDT
movie.
On 6/29/06, john porter <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> What do Mitsu's common sense and Michael's productive
> mentality say is the commonly-used word referring
> exclusively to that medium which is always viewed by
> passing light through a strip of clear acetate (not
> celluloid)?
> If we don't have such a word, that will help to kill
> that medium. Sounds like a lot of people want that.
> They're vultures and I'm a zombie. Grrrrrrr.
> John.
>
> --- Michael Betancourt <email suppressed>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree with all of this:
> >
> > On 6/29/06, Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Obviously there are people who are wedded to film
> > as a medium, and no
> > > amount
> > > of discussion will change that. However, the
> > world moves on. The fact
> > > is,
> > > the word "film" is used all the time to refer to
> > HD productions; my friend
> > > Miranda July for example released her film to
> > theaters, but in some venues
> > > it
> > > was projected digitally (including at IFC and at
> > Sundance), and just
> > > because
> > > in those cases it was produced and projected
> > digitally, it would have
> > > sounded
> > > ridiculous to call it a "video".
> > >
> > > Human beings decide what words mean through usage,
> > and the general public
> > > and
> > > common sense usage seem to agree that the word
> > "film" can be used for
> > > all-digital productions that are projected
> > digitally as long as it is
> > > reasonably high resolution and decent contrast,
> > etc. It's just the way
> > > the
> > > word is already being used, whether we like it or
> > not.
> > >
> > > I don't think there's going to be much confusion
> > --- context will
> > > generally
> > > make it clear whether you're using the word "film"
> > to mean specifically
> > > the
> > > celluloid medium, or whether you're using it more
> > generically. The fact
> > > is,
> > > after most production goes digital people will
> > still be calling it "the
> > > film
> > > industry" and the things that are being produced
> > "films". That's the way
> > > language works, the original inspiration for the
> > word can become obsolete
> > > but
> > > the word lives on in a new context.
> > >
> > > And I think there's nothing whatever wrong with
> > that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Languages evolve and meanings change.
> > Wanting to tie the language down and stop it
> > changing is really only good
> > for archivists, and my feeling is that this
> > mentality is counter-productive
> > for us as a community. Either "experimental (fill-in
> > your favorite term)
> > film" constitutes a tradition that exceeds the
> > materials of its
> > production/presentation, or it dies and "video art"
> > and that tradition (in
> > some ways similar, in others not) replaces it.
> >
> > We've talked about this before, which is why I asked
> > the "values" question.
> >
> >
> > Michael Betancourt
> > Des Moines, IA USA
> >
> > www.michaelbetancourt.com
> > www.cinegraphic.net
> > the avant-garde film & video blog
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> > <email suppressed>.
> >
> >
>
> John Porter, Toronto, Canada
> http://www.super8porter.ca/
> email suppressed
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
-- Michael Betancourt Des Moines, IA USA www.michaelbetancourt.com www.cinegraphic.net the avant-garde film & video blog __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.