From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2006 - 06:44:23 PDT
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were wanting a general
term for all these.
On 6/30/06, john porter <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> --- 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>.
>
-- 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>.