From: DOMINIC ANGERAME (email suppressed)
Date: Tue May 13 2008 - 12:16:54 PDT
I agree to some of what Fred states about film stocks.
Film stocks do not make the filmmaker. In my own case
the b&w reversal stock that I use to shoot has long
since been discontinued by our father who art in
Rochester. That stock added some sensibilities to the
images that I filmed, however, I now work with
different materials and the new material lends itself
to a whole other quality of filmmaking.
--- Fred Camper <email suppressed> wrote:
> Matt Helme wrote:
> > Does Avant-Garde mean anything when you just see
> > people doing the same old thing?I mean painting on
> > film and a 10 min static shot of the ocean may not
> > bad, but it's old hat.
> I made this point more than 20 years ago in an
> article called "The End
> of Avant-Garde Film" in the twentieth anniversary
> issue of "Millennium
> Film Journal." I argued specifically that painting
> on film was not in
> itself "avant-garde" anymore, and that "avant-garde
> film" now referred
> to a particular style. There has been better new
> work made since that
> article, but I think my point is even more true
> today: "avant-garde
> film" now means a particular type of filmmaking, not
> necessarily film
> that is doing something new.
> Still, I think my earlier point is correct, and is
> an important one:
> there is no such thing as a "better" film stock. If
> people could use
> that old Ektachrome ER, a few might love its weird
> colors and extreme
> graininess, to take only one example.
> Fred Camper
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.