James, I was about to answer to you, but then JMC said exactly what I was 
about to write - in terms of audience reception, I don't believe anyone 
watching the film pays attention to which kind of film is of better quality, 
but the impression they leave.  Also, I disagree with your talking about 
'objectivity' - because BWP and other works like that stress exactly the 
opposite, the LACK of objectivity that the cinematic camera has been 
traditionally thought of having.  It is precisely this lack that makes BWP 
scary, the fact that it is never objective, and it thus fails to show the 
witch.  A friend of mine had made an interesting point, that the camera IS 
the witch, like the witch it watches the three students losing their mind 
and life and it is the only one surviving the film.

Aris

>From: "JMC" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Blair Witch
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:53:16 -0500
>
>James, whether the black-and-white film is of higher quality than the color
>film complicates matters, but it does not undo Aris's argument: "I think 
>the
>black-and-white (low-tech)/colour (high-tech) conflict parallels the 
>arousal
>of tension and horror."
>
>Consider the following case, if you're familiar with these newspapers--_The
>Wall Street Journal_ and _USA Today_. _WJS_ is a black-and-white affair,
>purely business formal, while _USA Today_ is a "full" color, highly 
>readable
>affair. Would _WSJ_ come off as formal, factual, and to-the-point if it 
>were
>a full color production? Probably not; the addition of color would seem an
>unnecessary business expense. So, regardless of the actual technology used
>to produce it, _WSJ_ sells itself as a traditional newspaper--its appeal is
>to low-tech, i.e. seeming simplicity.
>
>I think Avis has said the same for the _Blair Witch Project_. Avis? The
>black-and-white footage appeals to the idea of low tech whether it is
>actually low tech or not.
>
>By the way James, could you specify the relationship of film to videotape 
>in
>the following statement:
>
>"As indicated by the text, they would record their first contact with 
>people
>in colour video, almost like a diary, and then proceed with a more formal
>interview in B+W while recording double-system sound on the Nagra.  The
>assumption drawn from the text is that their final product was intended as 
>a
>B+W documentary film."
>
>The "film" technology and the "video" technology issues are not clear. 
>Also,
>what do you mean by the following statement:
>
>"The B+W is shot on 16mm film, which has a better image resolution, and
>(from an economic level)
>is more costly, and therefore qualifies as high-tech over the consumer 
>level
>digital video camera, which, although in colour, produces an inferior
>image."
>
>In other words, what does the _BWP_ show as footage and what kind of
>technology does it use to present that footage?
>
>Thanks for your arguments. They're thought provoking.
>
>JMC
>
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%