 |
 |
I certainly would want to avoid "essentializing" the differences between cinema and television, especially as it seems to me there is increasing convergence as TV screen sizes, aspect ratios, high definition image quality and sound systems approach those of (some) cinema, while commercial cinema moves the other way with domestic distribution much more important economically than theatrical release. Increasing camera mobility has over more than half a century freed both media from studio constraints and other aesthetic limitations, while digital recording blurs the boundaries further. Alongside these technical and economic factors there is also the cultural reality that, in the West at least, television has long been associated with the domestic and constant availability, cinema with public exhibition and special event status. In Britain in particular this has associated television more with realism and cinema with fantasy, a tendency strengthened by their different styles and techniques, although of course there has been much cross-fertilization and crossover. Experimental and/or avant-garde film and video operate in different cultural institutions, a different economy and different exhibition spaces. It is useful to remember that (as I think John Caughie once observed) film is an outgrowth of photography, and for the first third or so of its history lacked sound and consequently developed a sophisticated visual rhetoric. Television, as broadcasting, is an outgrowth of radio which can be seen as having lacked pictures for the first third of its history; poor picture quality, studio conditions, domestic reception and its informational role retained much emphasis on close-ups, interiors and speech-based narration. While not wishing to fetishise the differences, I know exactly what Kermode is getting at when he distinguishes between cinema, television and gallery pieces. Nigel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:19:58 +0100 From: Nicholas Hamlyn <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Just what is Cinematic (from Zizane) Fair enough. However, there are differences between the TV set and the cinema screen, and, as a maker, one might well want to consider these different presentational forms when making work. Film and video artists have made work specifically designed to be seen on TV sets, and not projected. For example, David Hall's TV interventions had the intended context of broadcast TV, and were made when most people had boxes in their homes, as opposed to projectors. Taking account of these distinctions doesn't necessarily make one's work essentialist. Film is not video, TV sets are not projectors. Projection screens are not TV screens. Nicky Hamlyn. PS. This doesn't mean I agree with Mark Kermode. I just provided the link to his rant! * * * 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] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **