From: Marcos Ortega (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jul 01 2009 - 02:21:40 PDT
Check Brian Frye's article. He doesn't mention explcitly the
inclusion of footage from a scientific film, but the major points are
Marcos Quoting Myron Ort <email suppressed>:
> Good, I would like to know more about all that myself.
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Steve Polta wrote:
>> Someone more knowledgable than I can (and hopefully will) clarify
>> the process by which Cornell assembled ROSE HOBART but there is
>> much more to this than a simple deletion of the non-Rose scenes
>> from EAST OF BORNEO. There is definitely a reassembly of material,
>> not to mention the addition of sound and———get this———the
>> inclusion of material **NOT FOUND** in the original film. For
>> example, I believe the shot in ROSE of the white cap thing
>> floating in water is from some science film.
>> But hopefully someone (Ms. Liotta??) can clarify this for us all.
>> Steve Polta
>>> My understanding of "Rose Hobart" is that it was a
>>> found film with all the shots without Rose removed.
>>> The resulting "form" being the chance operation resulting
>>> from this simple conceptual device. Understanding this then
>>> leads me to a useful tool perhaps for another similar film.
>>> Simply calling it a collage doesn't get me to the core of
>>> this understanding, but I do see why people generally want
>>> to have these sweeping categories for general conversation,
>>> however misleading.
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.