>> I don't get it. My favorite film, `Day for Night' I have seen projected (I
>> assume 35mm), I have studied in school (definitely 16mm) and I own on video.
>> And it's always the same movie.
while i'm absolutely in sympathy with [and
fundamentally in agreement with] this position
i think it's not that difficult to "get" the axe that
the original post was grinding . . . the term
"specificity" is really a tendentious term that
serves to substitute for and SEEM to dispose
of the problem of "essentialism," but, as used,
it amounts to the same thing . . . and of course
what is specific to cinema [or anything else]
is largely a matter of definition and hence up
for grabs within any discourse community . . .
. . . to say that all three versions/incarnations/
mediations of this thing called DAY FOR
NIGHT are "the same movie" is to privilege
narrative or character or meaning or framing
over other elements [such as resolution or
f/p/s or even whether the image is being
generated in front of you or being projected
from behind you, a distinction that is central to
some theories that want to align cinema with
the psychological process of projection] . . . that
someone might want to privilege other features
of the 35mm version is certainly within the
bounds of reason, though i can't imagine what
purpose is served by such a rhetorical move
except a kind of snobbery and one-upmanship
mike frank
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|