From: Ken Bawcom (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2006 - 17:48:46 PDT
Quoting Cari Machet <email suppressed>:
> i wonder if any festivals let viewers vote?
>> > (way too democratic i bet)
>> Some festivals do have an audience's choice award, so yes, some do.
> i meant fully
> the entire award process as democratic
> like the peoples choice awards
> but then would it matter
> if all the voters were androids of the white male identity?
> hmnn maybe it would open them up in some way of thinking for themselves
> that it is possible - that it is desirable to do so
> that 'authorities' were not utilized -
> 'for once' a more open system was
Rather than "androids of the white male identity," I would characterize
a general audience as being hypnotized by the formulae of TV and
Hollywood. Of course there IS something of a white male influence in
that. If the awards were bestowed by a vote of the audience, the awards
would reflect that. The best and most innovative experimental work
would rarely, if ever, be awarded.
Although I doubt that you meant it quite that way, implying that
letting the audience bestow the awards is "way to democratic" for a
festival to be willing to do, reminds me of some of the perverse and
contorted logic that comes from the current US administration when they
imply that anyone who opposes them hates freedom. Experimental film
festivals are a strong exercise in freedom.
I've followed the discussion with interest, but see no reason to change
my position, stated a week ago.
Although this thread is labeled "labels," I don't think labels are the
issue. The issue is knowing what we mean by the words we use, so we can
understand each other, and have an intelligent discussion.
The original work, and the method of presentation, are two different
things. A work made on film is always a film. A copy of that work on a
DVD is a DVD of a film. It is an object that is not the work itself. Of
course most of us see films primarily by means of video of some kind.
But, Mothlight is still a film. Touch of Evil is still a film. To call
them videos is absurd. I've seen Guernica on a postage stamp, but
Guernica is still a painting, not a postage stamp.
A work produced on video, digital or analog, is still a video, even
when transfered to film. So, if you watch it, you are watching a video,
but on film. To most people, but of course not those here, this is
Then, there are works that would probably best be called hybrids,
although I haven't heard those who work with the moving image use the
term that way. On one end of the spectrum, there are experimental film
makers who shoot some video with a film camera to use in what is
primarily a film work. On the other end of the spectrum, there are
Lucas and his ilk, who use a substantial portion of CGI, originating
electronically, and not as film. I'd just call those movies, along with
everything else that produces a lighted moving image. We don't have a
better general term available.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.