 |
 |
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MIKE: It was originally made as a film but I don't have it on film.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MIKE: No, but two episodes of the TV series were originally made as a film 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] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%