Damian wrote:
>All film is a record of a profilmic event, even cell animation. Even if the
cell has been placed under a rotoscope, it is still pro-filmic,
it's just that it is not presented in that way. The very act of filming is a
pro-filmic event, surely?
What about scratching directly on film? I still believe Len Lye, Norman
McLaren et al. made films.
On the other hand, if we want to reduce 'film' to things projected in the
dark, then an expression 'films on video' or 'films on TV' would sound like
an oxymoron. So we're back to the old question: why would one want to define
'film' once and for all times? Because it's hype to entertain ideas about
presence and absence? I'm quite satisfied to have as the object of my
contemplation variety of audio-visual material.
Somehow I feel that people do not ask questions about, say, literature at
this level: Is Leopold Bloom REALLY in my room when I read Ulisses? Do the
marks on the paper belong to madame Bovary, or is it just reader's cultural
baggage? Does Poe's Raven stops being literature when I read it in the
screen of my PC?
Why films still confuse (even film scholars) - at such an elementary level?
Cheers,
Boris Vidovic
|