To follow on from Mike Frank's first paragraph below, we might say
that ALL film (material film) consists of frames attached together -
whether the next frame is from another reel of film or simply the next
on the same reel.
All film, according to this model, is an 'edited' version of reality
(ipso facto!).
By this rationale, might one follow Mulvey, Branigan, Rosen, Doane and
others of late, whose ideas on death and the image and stillness could
conceivably be used to posit an argument whereby a still photograph is
(already?!) a "film" - and the only, true 'unedited' "single-shot
film" (although this was not quite what the original email asked for).
As for Damian Sutton on Blow Job: the changes of reel are very obvious
indeed, sir, since the screen goes white every 4 or 5 minutes, in
accordance with the average amount of film that could be held on the
average spool for the Bolex that (I think - if memory serves) Warhol
was using...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:07:21 -0400
From: "Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: One shot films
>>The reel changes ARE edits (in the sense of 'cuts'), btw.
hmm . . . maybe, maybe not . . . if an edit is understood as any
mechanical process of attaching one length of film to another,
regardless of what images are on those two lengths of film, then yes,
reel changes are ipso facto edits
but if we understand editing more phenomenologically as a shift -
however big or small - is the perceptual POV provided by two lengths of
film where they join, then reel changes of the kind hitchcock employed
are not strictly speaking cuts.
mike
*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|