Damian Sutton wrote:
I see your point about film and becoming.
I also understood that Deleuze's description of becoming
was that time and movement were irreducible. I'm not sure
if a byte counts as a reduction in this sense. Bergson's
concept of film's limitations were that film could only
reproduce abstract time or abstract movement (defilement)
as a progress of privileged instants.
So I suppose we must ask any boffs out there if digital
technology records instants and peproduces them in
sequence, or whether it records movement as irreducible?
This is actually a question that I would really like to know the answer
to, before I start making wild claims for a _Cinema 3: The Digital
Image_.
Moreover, and again in an anti-Platonic vein, to define a definition, in
response to Ludvig Hertzberg and Kees Bakker, would be to
suggest that there was ever once an originary Model that could be
defined as 'film' (that whole debate about precedents, origins,
Zoetropes, photography, etc.) from which to re-define using the
digital image; whereas, perhaps there is instead a definition of film
as a form of (not solely narrative, but also technological) evolution.
Creative Evolution to get back to Bergson.
dave.
David Martin-Jones
Rm 205, Department of Theatre,
Film and Television
The University of Glasgow
0141 3303809 ext. 0804
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|