Let's add another ingredient to this. Is the "film" or "video" or whatever
you want to call it different when shown on a TV monitor vs. being shown on
a video projector in a darkened room? See Gerald Mast in his chapter on
"Projection" in FILM/CINEMA/MOVIE. HIs chapter is also in FILM THEORY AND
CRITICISM, ed. by Mast, Cohen and Braudy.
At 11:10 AM 5/11/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Consider this neo-Socratic dialogue:
>SOC: Do you have a film of CITIZEN KANE?
>MIKE: No, I have it on videotape.
>SOC: Was it a film or a TV show?
>MIKE: It was originally made as a film but I don't have it on film.
>SOC: Do you have a film of George Reeves in THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN?
>MIKE: No, but two episodes of the TV series were originally made as a film
>entitled "Superman and the Mole Men." They were then reproduced as two
>episodes of the TV series.
>SOC: Do you mean they were videotaped?
>MIKE: No, back in the 1950s they were photographed on film. There is a
>recent TV series called "Lois and Clark" in which Dean Cain plays the part
>of Superman. I suspect it was videotaped.
>SOC: But I heard that there were films that Superman appeared in.
>MIKE: Yes! Several groups of episodes from the 1950s TV series were
>released as films and shown in movie theatres. And in the 1980s there were
>a series of Superman films starring Christopher Reeve. And there were two
>Superman serials made for movie theatres in the 1940s. There have also been
>Superman animated cartoons that were made for movie theatres and made for
>TV. You can get all of those now on videotape.
>SOC: Is an animated cartoon a film?
>MIKE: Well, they are usually referred to as cartoons but I guess a
>distinction can be made between TV cartoons and movie theatre cartoons. But
>all I can say is that cartoons are not CALLED films even if they are
>released on film. On the other hand, I would not buy a film because I do
>not own a film projector or a screen. I do have many films on videotape
>however because I do own a VCR.
>
>THIS DIALOGUE IS WRITTEN IN WHAT USED TO BE CALLED "ORDINARY LANGUAGE
>ANALYSIS."
>Best wishes to you all, Mike Oliker
><[log in to unmask]>
>Executive Director, Midwest Philosophy of Education Society
>
>
>----------
>> From: David Martin-Jones <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: when is a film not a film
>> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 11:07 AM
>>
>> 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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|