From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 22:34:29 PDT
--- Michael Betancourt <email suppressed>
wrote:
> movie.
This is an example of your productive mentality?
You truly believe that the word "movie" is commonly
used to refer not to video, but only to light passing
through a strip of clear acetate? You must be out of
touch (in the hinterland). If you yourself use "movie"
that way, then the "movies" in your email name
indicates that you do not work with video, but only
with light passing through strips of clear acetate.
I never hear people (and you would be among them)
saying "movies are dead, but film lives on".
Please try again.
John.
>
> 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>.
>
>
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>.