Doron wrote:
I'd like to quote from Peter von Brandenburg the NY art critic that said:
"film & video are mediumistic descriptors, whereas 'movie' is 'a media',
e.g. an actual aesthetic vector.
Either film or video might or might not be 'a movie'."
Unfortunately, Doron, these comments by von Brandenburg are, to put it
charitably, less than helpful. Worse, I haven't the foggiest notion of what
the man is writing about. ``Mediumistic descriptors''??!!?? What, pray tell,
is this? To parse this term is probably not worth my time, but it may (and
I'm guessing here) refer to terms that describe the medium...? Actually, as
I noted before, the terms ``film'' and ``video'' don't describe
anything--they identify the two media in a specifically materialist way.
Film IS film; video IS video. This is precisely why art museums and
galleries use these terms (and sometimes go further, identifying the film
format, eg. 16mm, 35mm) for labelling works on display.
Therefore, von Brandenburg's second statement quoted here is manifestly
incorrect. ``Movie'' is most definitely NOT ``a media.'' He goes on, in his
apparently willfully obtuse, inpenetrable prose, to note that ``movie'' as
``a media'' is, for eg. ``an actual aesthetic vector.'' At which point, I
stop cold in my tracks, whip my head around Conan O'Brien-style (mimicking
George Bush The Child) and go, ``Huh?!?''
``Movie'' is an American slang pop cultural word that cleverly reduces
the term ``motion picture.'' (We Americans have forever been addicted to
this kiind of reduction: I'm Robert, but you can call me Bob. Just don't
call me Bob le Flambeur.) ``Movie'' is a far richer and more complicated
word than something that can be abstracted to the nonsense of ``aesthetic
vector.'' (Definition, please!) The word has been attached to everything
from pure pop culture fandom, to the critical movement surrounding the U.K.
film journal, Movie, to the ``movie-over-cinema art'' argument that was
Kael's particular banner to wave. There are so many disparate associations
with ``movie'' that I wonder if they've ever been fully quantified or
listed. But whatever uses the word may have, none include identifing the
medium.
Then, finally, the von Brandenburg quote ends with this doozy: ``Either
film or video might or might not be 'a movie'." Well, now, that's settled,
isn't it? One way to read this is as a terrible re-phrasing of the John
Simon line, that some works of cinema are ``films'' (Simon would cite
Bergman, early Wertmuller) and others are ``movies'' (eg., Jerry Lewis
comedies). As I said before, this sort of discrimination is both pointless
and hopeless: Where does one exactly draw the line between what qualifies as
``a movie'' or ``a film'' under these aesthetic rules? Isn't this just a
very bad English-language verbal fumbling of the French ``un film de''
credit, transferring the supposedly more serious French cinephilic value to
American terminology, thus making what might be ``a movie'' into something
that's suddenly ``a film'' (eg. ``a film by McG'')? Isn't this usage
actually at heart driven by marketing dictates, which find such meaningless
distinctions useful in categorizing various works for filing in the vast
marketplace? And if this is the case, what does this have to do in any way
with the cinema work's intrinsic value, merit or meaning?
On the other hand, what von Brandenburg may be stating is so beyond the
point that it isn't worth stating at all. For one thing, a ``video'' is
never a ``movie.'' Videotape contains no pictures (and certainly no motion
pictures), but does contain electronic information. And ``film'' can also be
still photo film, which is obviously not a motion picture, or ``movie.''
If anything, von Brandenburg's comments only underline my previous
point, which is that the cinema culture needs to use its terms with clarity
and precision.
Robert Koehler
