From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2009 - 15:30:47 PST
I was under the impression it was only 1fps.
Certainly the garden of luxor shot at 4fps looks much smoother in that way than some of the footage in Angelic conversation.
love
Freya
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Peter Snowdon <email suppressed> wrote:
> From: Peter Snowdon <email suppressed>
> Subject: angelic conversations
> To: email suppressed
> Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 11:08 PM
> Dinorah de Jesús Rodriguez wrote:
> > but hey, i'd really love to argue about whether
> Jarman shot at 3 or 6 fps. any ideas anyone? i'm afraid
> i don't have the film in front of me, nor would it be
> easy to make an educated guess as far as this aspect of the
> work by viewing a youtube version. can anyone here post a
> link to Angelic Conversations?
> >
> http://jclarkmedia.com/jarman/jarman04.html
>
> In a film incorporating so many different forms of paradox,
> there is also a major financial one. Jarman knew that the
> lower the budget, the greater the personal freedom. So after
> three (Jarman would chuckle at the term)
> "mainstream" films done in 35mm — and with
> Caravaggio long on hold — Jarman went for his trusty
> Super-8 Nizo camera, that he got in the '70s. He'd
> often used it to make short experimental films, including
> some in a type of stop-motion photography where he shot only
> three or six frames per second, and then projected the film
> at a comparably "unnatural" speed. The effect
> resembles a dreamlike, or nightmarish, magic lantern show.
> And so was The Angelic Conversation's unique style born.
> Jarman joked that he did this to make the expensive film
> cartridges last longer — each was good for only two and a
> half minutes — but he clearly had more artistic visions in
> mind too (further proof that you have to read Jarman's
> comments on his own work with more than a few grains salt).
>
> the youtube links to the 1985 live soundtrack performance
> in turin are not a bad place to start perhaps:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA3ccnrdVOo
>
> since jarman claimed that one of the effects was to
> synchronise the frame changes with the viewer's
> heartbeat, i would hope it was 3fps maximum, or even less:)
> peter
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.