Re: labels/original intent of post

From: Ken Bawcom (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 14:57:29 PDT

Quoting Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed>:
> You say you "don't think so" yet what I am saying is obviously the case.
> People just don't use the word "film" in the way that you and some others are
> insisting it be used. It has come to mean something more synonymous
> with "movie" and it's pissing in the wind to fantasize about a world where
> this hasn't occurred.

I think you've got this backwards. Originally, ALL movies were films,
and the terms were more or less synonymous from the beginning. The
first movie made on video (16mm videotape) and released to major
theaters, that I know of was Frank Zappa's "200 Motels," released in
1971. It was shown in theaters in the form of 35mm film. Most people in
the US, not involved with film, called it a "movie," not a "film."
Those of us who knew that it was made on video were at least as
interested in the look of the result, and how it was different from
film, as we were in the actual content. We also called it a "movie,"
not a film, even though we normally used the term film.

I have no doubt that most people in the US, who go to the local
multiplex, would say they are going to see a "movie," not a film. So
now, due to the widespread use of various video formats, the terms are
no longer mostly interchangeable. For purposes of discussion it is
therefore more accurate, and easier, to use the word "movie" as the
general term, and the word "film" when we really mean film, rather than
have to say something like 'a film shot on real film, not video.' I
agree that HD work needs a more accurate name than just "video," but
"film" is not it. "HD movie," or "HD video" works fine, or just
"movie," if the format is not relevant. I don't condemn a work as
inferior because it is made on video.

Film and video are different mediums that allow different techniques
particular to each, producing different effects. I saw a SONY demo a
few years ago of a 60 frame per second progressive, HD video system. It
was stunning, and except for having a bit too much blue, looked every
bit as good as film to me, probably better in some ways. The day when
video equals film in picture quality is at hand. Maybe soon, people who
work in that medium won't think it an insult to call their work
"video," instead of "film."

Ken Bawcom

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