Re: [Frameworks] FrameWorks Digest, Vol 15, Issue 26

From: Mike Morris <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:19:36 -0700 (PDT)

Part of the issue I haven't seen addressed yet is whether making films can survive without Kodak. Something I remember happening when Polaroid went out of business was that photographers who had been doing certain alternative processes with Polaroid products began using similar products made by Fuji (not sure what the present status of that is...). Then there is also the "impossible project" that started making certain kinds of polaroid products again (also haven't checked into the status of this project recently...). I know that Fuji certainly doesn't make the variety of stocks that Kodak has, certainly not an equivalent to 7302 or 7363 which are so useful to film artists, but could certain aspects of this kind of practice be maintained via Fuji or other manufacturers? It seems that as long as some stock is being manufactured, certain areas of film making can continue, such as the super 8 stocks that are available from Pro 8mm or other companies, or the
 double 8 that is re-perforated from other stocks, etc.

I've heard it said that film will likely remain a capture medium for a time, but may have a hard time surviving as an exhibition medium. What's still lost in that case is part of the process of working with film and how that affects the possible meaning of a finished piece.


Mike Morris
Dallas, Texas

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: zach vonjoo <>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Arguments about film v. video have been swirling around for a long time-- more and more free-lance jobs specifically only request video experience, etc etc.

One of the things about analog/film-technology that hasn't been mentioned so far (forgive me if I missed something in a post) is its accessability.? In the "push-button" world of video, if something breaks, the user of the tools, the filmmaker/projectionist, whatever, is cut off from the technology by its inaccessibility.? You can't just tape it back together, bend something the wrong way to make it work, etc.? Instead, another device must be borrowed, a shoot or screening canceled, a company must be written to, etc.? So, one of the reasons I lament the death of film is that its lack supports a technocratic way of doing things.? Filmmaking may be filled with "lore," but its lore is comprehensible, divertable, mutable, breakable.? I often hear the criticism that film-lovers are fetishists.? okay.? I accept this-- the fetishism that comes with the use of an elegant tangible technology is the same fetishism that sends the imagination into a place
 where beautiful things can be built.? I can't imagine a viable future without also dreaming of pieces of the past.? In a world where freedom of choice is expanded into endless, limitless, intangibility, I find something really satisfying about film's "touchability."? For me, it's a less autistic medium.? I suppose we're lucky to live in a time where both technologies intersect, Bolex lenses shooting up in value because they can be used on HD-cams, people shooting on video & transferring to film, linking it to a friend in a more degraded video, etc etc.? It's interesting, if confusing.

That said, I hope Kodak doesn't quit making film for a while more.? I want to make quite a few more films!?

Zach ?

?? ?

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 23:19:45 CDT