From: Arturo Menchaca (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2006 - 00:35:14 PST
21 yrs old, student
On Mar 3, 2006, at 2:18 AM, jarrod whaley. wrote:
> Jason, et al.--
> I'm certainly not advocating wholesale profiteering. Far from it. I'm
> talking much more about cultural viability than economic viability.
> I'm talking about being in touch with reality and keeping up with the
> times, for God's sake.
> I'd agree with you that work produced with a profit motive isn't
> likely to meet any realistic interpretation of what constitutes art.
> But I also don't think there's anything wrong with making work
> available to as wide an audience as possible. If filmmakers don't want
> an audience, then why make more than one print? Why do the co-ops
> exist? The vast majority of us might like to have a few people see
> what we do.
> I think you missed my point entirely. If you want to (or have the
> means to) watch film prints exclusively, then have at it. Not everyone
> can spend several hundred dollars to rent a print every time they want
> to watch a movie. Are they to be denied the ability to become familiar
> with any kind of work that, as you say yourself, isn't motivated by
> profit? Even if it is made clear to audiences that video reproductions
> are just that? Just what or whom is it hurting to make videos/DVD's
> available alongside film prints? The geeks and aficionados will seek
> out the prints, and everyone else will watch the videos (and be
> perfectly happy doing so). Don't want to watch video? OK, don't. But
> most people want to. I guess they can go to hell, right?
> Here's where the "respect for the artist's intent" response crops up.
> Can you imagine a world where no photographic reproductions of the
> great paintings existed? Isn't that the kind of world you're arguing
> for when it comes to film? No wonder most people swallow Hollywood's
> bilge. It's the only kind of cinema that exists in the public mind.
> As you pointed out, many avant-garde films are available for free on
> file-sharing networks. Is the quality very good? No. Why? Partly
> because video isn't as capable a medium as film, sure. Partly because
> these freely-distributed copies are third-generation copies of
> washed-out bootleg VHS tapes (or crappy DV footage of an actual
> projection, whatever). Because no quality transfers are available.
> The point is that people already are choosing and will continue to
> choose video, even when all they have is poor quality. Nothing will
> change that. In fact, that will become more and more the truth as time
> goes by. Would you rather viewers watch bad quality reproductions, or
> high-quality ones? Because no matter what you decide, they WILL watch
> I wish we could all sit around and watch film prints all the time,
> too. I also wish I could fly. Wishes don't help me very much when I
> try to bend the laws of physics to meet the demands of my desires. And
> you know what else? I don't know about you, but I like to eat. And I
> can't very well do that when I'm spending thousands of dollars on a
> medium that is becoming increasingly archaic and irrelevant with each
> passing day. Yeah, film's beautiful, and it's great, and it's too bad
> it's going away, and blah blah blah. But its days are numbered. Just
> ask Kodak. So what do we do now? Do we number our own days with it, or
> do we keep working? I don't know about you, but I'll take option #2,
> Finally, and again, I can't help but agree with you that a filmmaker
> has the right to prohibit video reproductions of his/her work. I just
> don't think it's very smart, whatever the reason for it. Video copies
> WILL appear. It's just a question of who profits from those copies:
> filmmakers, or bootleggers, or nobody at all.
> I'm as romantic (Romantic?) as the next person, but I also know that
> sometimes you just have to be realistic.
> -->jarrod whaley.
> filmmaker. videographer.
> web designer. educator.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.