From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 13:53:55 PDT
People may use the paintbrush tool in Photoshop, and "paint" by
clicking a mouse, but that doesn't mean that when we use the word paint
we should expand the meaning to include pixels as well as something in
a tube. We don't call printer ink paint either, we call it printer ink.
So why would you want to call video film? It's not film, any more than
a potato is a cabbage.
We use language to say what we mean. So if we mean video, we should say
video. It's not a moral issue, it's one of clarity. You would not call
a film projected on video a video. You would call it a film projected
on video. And Miranda July made an HD movie. Transferring it to film
does make it film, but it's not a film of people and things, it's a
film of a video of people and things.
On Jun 29, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Mitsu Hadeishi wrote:
> Obviously there are people who are wedded to film as a medium, and no
> 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
> 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
> in those cases it was produced and projected digitally, it would have
> 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
> 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
> 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>
>>> 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
>>> I'd rather hear what makes something good than what
>>> makes the difference
>>> between film and not-film. (But maybe that's just
>> 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>.
Anna Biller Productions
2216 Nella Vista Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Office and Fax: (323) 953-0507
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.