Re: labels

From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 13:06:52 PDT

Obviously there are people who are wedded to film as a medium, and no amount
of discussion will change that. However, the world moves on. The fact is,
the word "film" is used all the time to refer to HD productions; my friend
Miranda July for example released her film to theaters, but in some venues it
was projected digitally (including at IFC and at Sundance), and just because
in those cases it was produced and projected digitally, it would have sounded
ridiculous to call it a "video".

Human beings decide what words mean through usage, and the general public and
common sense usage seem to agree that the word "film" can be used for
all-digital productions that are projected digitally as long as it is
reasonably high resolution and decent contrast, etc. It's just the way the
word is already being used, whether we like it or not.

I don't think there's going to be much confusion --- context will generally
make it clear whether you're using the word "film" to mean specifically the
celluloid medium, or whether you're using it more generically. The fact is,
after most production goes digital people will still be calling it "the film
industry" and the things that are being produced "films". That's the way
language works, the original inspiration for the word can become obsolete but
the word lives on in a new context.

And I think there's nothing whatever wrong with that.


On Thursday 29 June 2006 15:31, john porter wrote:
> --- Michael Betancourt <email suppressed>
> wrote:
> > Perhaps it's philistine to ask, but what difference
> > does it
> > make--film/video, digital/analog--if the work isn't
> > any good?
> Nobody said the work we're discussing is or isn't any
> "good".
> > I'd rather hear what makes something good than what
> > makes the difference
> > between film and not-film. (But maybe that's just
> > me?)
> Not me. Agreeing on what makes something "good" is a
> lost cause. Agreeing on dictionary definitions of
> tangible objects like film and video is a more
> realistic goal. And it would serve ANY of our
> discussions to know what we mean by the word "film",
> and what word we use to refer exclusively to that
> medium which is always viewed by passing light through
> a strip of clear acetate.
> John Porter, Toronto, Canada
> email suppressed
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.