"Or, do you think that 'empirical verification' of a cut on a strip of
film does not 'rely heavily' on the 'perceptual detection' of a person doing
the 'verification'?"

It might rely on perception in some instances (I'm leaving
animation/digital out of this) in this discussion (on
"films/adverts/music video's etc where only one shot is used") where
there is a question over whether a given film was really achieved in
one shot, but not so much in the case of 'Rope', which was being
discussed as a one-shot film when we can say for certain that it
isn't. There *is* a level of fuzzy logic there w/r/t the film 'as we
see it' on DVD, video, etc vs whatever the original of a film might be
said to be (comparable to the discussion of, say, the reproduction oil
paintings in art books?).

re. "The point is to make a conceptual
distinction between the editing as a technical process ('splicing',
'mixing'), and editing as a reception fenomenon."

It would be interesting to see a comparative study of how the film was
received by different audiences, but the cuts in 'Rope' are quite
blatant as well as being well documented, and that's only partly
because the "lack of cuts" is the film's USP.


On 7/13/07, Frank, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Does this mean that we have to make do with a certain base level of fuzzy
> logic?!
>
>
>
> not if we work at being as clear as human language allows about what we're
> referring to . . . there's nothing remarkable about the fact that word cut
> has two different if overlapping referents – the same thing is true of loads
> of other words . . . if we keep this in mind and make sure the one we mean
> is identified there should be no necessary fuzziness
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Henry M. Taylor
>  Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:59 PM
>  To: [log in to unmask]
>  Subject: Re: One shot films
>
>
>
>
>
> A splice, as I understand it, is simply the physical/mechanical aspect of
> joining two strips of film, which may or may not coincide with a cut - in
> most cases it will, but in the hypothetical example given, it would be a
> splice and not a cut.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isn't part of the problem raised by this discussion that in film studies we
> still largely rely on terminology indelibly entangled with and derived from
> the production process of film ('cuts', 'shots', shot sizes, etc. etc.),
> whereas from a purist position of film viewing and spectatorship, analysis
> would have to come up with its own terms - probably impossible, since even
> viewers without filmmaking experience have a certain amount of knowledge of
> the production process.
>
>
>
>
>
> Does this mean that we have to make do with a certain base level of fuzzy
> logic?! Hmmm...
>
>
>
>
>
> H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> sorry to keep harping on this, but if we were just clearer about what we
> mean by certain terms at least some of these problems [who does the
> verifying, or how a cut differs >from a splice] would go away
>
>
>
>
>
> consider:  early on in the history of cinema splices or cuts were necessary
> when a filmmaker wanted to extend a presentation beyond what could be loaded
> into the camera . . . but it was not long before filmmakers discovered that
> there were advantages – opportunities for particular cinematic and
> rhetorical effects – that could be achieved by shifting from one continuous
> set of images to another . . . since this shift involved cutting the film it
> was called [and is still called] a "cut" . . .  but since its purpose was at
> least in many cases expressive, the presentational [or rhetorical or
> enuniciative] device of shifting the viewer's literal [that is, visual or
> perceptual, not conceptual] point-of-view, the use of  that device has also
> come to be called a "cut"
>
>
>
>
>
> while it's true that in many more recent technologies, as well as in
> animation, cuts in the former sense will not occur, there's no inherent
> reason that cuts in the second sense cannot continue to be used, if
> filmmakers find them useful,  no matter what the technology . . . OTOH,
> contemporary technology might provide a different range of expressive
> devices [think of anime, for example] so that filmmakers may choose not to
> use cuts in the second sense
>
>
>
>
>
> [and. for whatever my own two cents may be worth, it seems to me that it's
> specifically the second kind of cut that's of real interest to film theory
> and philosophy]
>
>
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Empirically verifiable* - how do you mean? Physical verification?
>
>
> Perceptual verification? What with 'edits' in animation film where you do
>
>
> not have transition from one film strip to another? How to verify
>
>
> 'transitions from one film strip to another' in an exploatation copy of a
>
>
> film, where you do not have splices? Or, while waching a projection of a
>
>
> film? Or on video tape, or DVD copy, where you do not deal with the spliced
>
>
> strip? Or, do you think that 'empirical verification' of a cut on a strip of
>
>
> film does not 'rely heavily' on the 'perceptual detection' of a person doing
>
>
> the 'verification'?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hrvoje
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I think it's more helpful to talk about cuts as empirically
>
>
> > verifiable... cuts, transitions from one film strip to another. The
>
>
> > discussion of whether they're detectable/perceptible or not relies
>
>
> > heavily on assumptions about how "we" see films without specifying any
>
>
> > audience in particular.
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> **
>
> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the
> salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact:
> [log in to unmask] **
>
>
>
> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the
> salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact:
> [log in to unmask] **
>  * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the
> salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact:
> [log in to unmask] **

*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**