If the purist ideal of cinephilia can be at least provisionally
and minimally defined as access to the screening of 35mm
prints of international "art films" in a reasonably current
and timely manner, then for all intents and purposes, I
would have to say that what little cinephilia I have experienced
was mostly limited to the years 1973-75, and ended for most
intents and purposes with the US release of Sauve qui peaut
(Jean-Luc Godard, 1979) in 1980 or 1981.
So, at the outset, I must admit that my cinephilia is
of a pretty limited variety compared to most of the other
contributors to this journal (Senses of Cinema). Also, my
cinephilia resulted
almost immediately in my desire to actually become a filmmaker,
so my energies shifted from viewing films to attempting
to get involved in making films.
But, I would guess that not many of any of our various
degrees of cinephelia can approach what I would consider
as the "Golden Age" of cinephilia: Paris, France in the
1950s (roughly between the founding of Cahiers du Cinema
and the death of Andre Bazin).
Whose cinephilia in this day and age could compare to
that of the individuals Henri Langlois (of the Cinematheque
Francais), Georges Sadoul, Jean Mitry and Andre Bazin, or
the group of film critics/wanna-be directors at Cahiers
du Cinema during the 50s? Of those critics and/or theorists
currently writing in English and immediately accessible,
I
would venture to say that Jonathan Rosenbaum is the only
one who comes even remotely close.
ButI don't want to dwell here on cinephelia for cinephilia's
sake, or as an end in itself, but as an entre into what
I consider to be a much more important aspect and/or yardstick
of cinephilia and a topic of film criticism/theory/analysis
in general: the issue of cinematic specificity.
One of the things that made the cinephilia of 1950s Paris
unique was the kind and degree of cinematic specificity
that existed not only on the technical and perceptual level
(the screening of 35mm prints), but on the level of the
criteria of selection which determined which films were
shown at the Cinematheque Francais (an almost totally random
and non-canonically or genre-ically heirarchized daily selection).
Technically, because the films were shown in their original
35mm format. That is very important, because I don't consider
the borderline between cinephilia/non-cineohilia to be located
at the film/video juncture, but at the more primary juncture
and technical/perceptual crevasse separating 35mm film projection
and 16mm film projection.
Contrary to Andre bazin, the alleged perceptual transparency
of the photographic aspect of film production in no way
exists at the projection stage, and this non-transparency
is not homogenous and/or equivalent across all film formats,
but unique for each of the three formats (35mm, 16mm, and
Super 8mm).
At the apex of the pyramid of cinematic specificity is
the 35mm projection process. But that process is not either
completely transparent and/or homogenous. The informational
transmission frequency (24 frames per second [fps]) of 35mm
projection is not the same as either the frequency base
for the perception of the illusion of motion (16 fps), or
that necessary to mask the "flicker effect" (approximately
45 fps) that is inherent in the projection of motion picture
images.(1)
The central technological fact is that a 35mm motion
picture projector has a two-bladed secondary "shutter" distinct
from the primary shutter which is dedicated to synchronously
allow light to be projected through each of the 24 discrete
photographic frames that appear in front of the projection
lamp during each second of a 35mm photographic/narrative
motion picture.
The 24fps speed at which the images are projected is
enough to cross the perceptual threshold of the illusion
of continuous motion (16fps), but not enough to cross the
threshold of the perception of flicker (45fps). So there
are two discrete perceptual "layers" occurring during the
projection of a 35mm motion picture.
1. The "informational" layer, in which 24 discrete photographic
image frames are illuminated per second in alternation with
24 equal periods of darkness.
2. The "flicker" layer, in which each period of illumination
occurring on the informational layer is also interrupted
again by the passing of the secondary projector shutter
blade across the projector's aperature during the period
when each discrete photographic image frame is being illuminated
and projected.
The spectator of a 35mm motion picture is exposed to
48 flashes of light per second, but the visual information
being presented only changes 24 times per second, so that
spectator is not seeing a transparent duplication of what
was recorded by the motion picture camera, but, basically,
a very high speed slide show where each discrete photographic
image is projected two times in succession.
This is the primary technological/perceptual basis for
the specificity of the 35mm motion picture experience, the
much-discussed "montage effect", and also the inherrantly
expressionistic bias of the visual "channel" of 35mm cinema,
which must be consciously addressed by any filmmaker who
wishes to explore a more contemplative vein of film stylistics.
In contrast, the 16mm projector, in order to allow it
to be able to project silent films at the rate of 16fps
and simultaneously cross the flicker effect threshold, has
a three-bladed secondary shutter, resulting in the projection
of a normal 24fps 16mm sound film at the rate of 72 "flickers"
per second, with each of the 24 discrete photographic image
frames being projected three times in succession.
This results in at least a 50% reduction in the "montage
effect" versus that which occurs during the projection of
a 35mm motion picture, and a serious reduction in cinematic
specificity, in my opinion. Plenty enough to justify the
opinion that if you haven't seen a particular film in 35mm
projection, then you haven't "really" seen the film, not
to mention the other, but not quite as perceptually important,
problem of the difference in aspect ratios of the projected
images.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Teresa DeLaurentis, The Cinematic Apparatus, Saint
Martin's Press, New York, Dec. 1985
-----------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
