From: Mitsu Hadeishi (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 02 2006 - 15:17:47 PDT
Of course, it is true that film has come to mean something slightly different
from "movie" --- in popular usage it has come to mean something akin to
high-resolution movie as opposed to "video" which refers to a lower
resolution format. But you're simply incorrect when it comes to the way the
words are being used today. If you don't believe me (though I continue to
find it astonishing that people on this list would claim that this isn't the
case) --- just do a simple Google search to check. For example, one can find
100 examples of people talking about "Miranda July's film", 242 referring
to "Miranda July's movie", and only 7 who refer to "Miranda July's video" ---
none of which are references to her feature film but rather to her earlier
video work and compilations. Yes, the word "movie" is clearly more common
than the word "film" but it is equally clear that the word "film" has been
used to refer to "films shot on HD" or "movies shot on HD".
On Sunday 02 July 2006 17:57, Ken Bawcom wrote:
> 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>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.