Fred is not merely saying "What draws you to film?" Fred's question:
> What is there about your
> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and what
> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
exactly fits with the food metaphor. He is specifically talking about "loss," and asking practitioners to defend their choices against other choices. He suggests through these questions and through his statement: "I don't think we should have mystical, or fetishistic, attachments to any particular media," that people who insist on working with film are closed-minded luddites. I have been hearing these sorts of pointed questions for more than twenty years leveled at people who work with film. I would never demand of any practitioner of art to justify their choice of medium, or tell them what they should or shouldn't fetishize.
I also would never put video down as a medium. Video is really great, and for some projects I'm sure it's much preferable to film, but as Pip said they really are very different. One could go into various technical aspects such as flicker or resolution or grain or whatever, but the closest I can get is a description of how they feel in my body when I watch them. Film feels organic and human, video feels more slick and crisp. I guess it all depends on what you are going for. Of course so much depends on how you use the media too. But especially in watching experimental films there are effects which one COULD get on video, but which you would never think of trying because they are not organic to how video works. It's the same for editing. The way one organically works with digital and analog processes tends to be different. I am so struck in viewing experimental films from the '60s how often they use things such as paper cutouts and handmade silhouettes, or images superimposed on top of one another, or overexposed images, or psychedelic colors. No one would ever think of using a matte made with scissors these days when mattes can be made with a click of the mouse. And so the images don't look the same. Not better or worse - just different. WIth digital processes being what they are, almost no one makes anything by hand anymore. So, some of the difference is in how it is one works with film or video. The images you get from a heavier camera are different. If you don't have to white-balance, that's different. If you can't play back what you've just filmed, you'll make different choices. If your stock is more expensive, you may plan your shoot more carefully. If you have to wait for the images to come back from the lab or to appear in your chemicals, it can be like a magical process that's imbued with emotional meaning. The immediacy of video has a different emotional meaning. Not everything is "result." I think that in making art, a lot of it is also "process," at least for the artist.
When this question came up before, I said that film handles color and especially whites and blacks differently. And that is probably the single biggest technical difference. I find the white whites, black blacks, and red reds of film, which can be screamingly bright without hurting your eyes, are some of the best things about film. With analog processes you can turn things up really high without distorting them so they're ugly. Video has a very small contrast range. I get very excited about how bright you can make colors on film, and how they never bleed. If you like dark or muted colors, video handles those better. Video is great for midtones. Even when people use film nowadays, they seldom light it very much. Film doesn't seem to be about light much anymore. If you're not going to really light it - (what was once considered normal lighting in movies is now nearly universally called "overlighting" ) - then I suppose it doesn't matter as much. I can see getting into video, as Jake said, for its own qualities and being happy with it. But they really are so different. And I much prefer how people look on film. On a personal note the first film I ever shot was on video, and because of glitches in the equipment, I lost all the raw footage and the final version, which disappeared into ever-increasing white glitches until it was completely gone. The experience made me quite bitter. I had worked a year with extreme intensity on that video. I know video is much more reliable now, but I have never quite gotten over that first experience. After that I bought a Super 8mm camera at a garage sale, which changed my life.
I sometimes get ill when watching HD projections in the cinema. My eyes are sensitive also to LCD computer light. My eyes get very tired looking at a computer screen, and I get searing headaches. It can be quite painful. I get motion sickness too when watching projected video. I once had to quit a job as a video operator because of the motion sickness I got looking through the viewfinder. Also, because the cameras are so light and so easy to hold by hand there tends to be so much more camera movement in films shot on video. Because of this and the jumpy video image there are few new films at festivals that I can sit through without becoming physically ill. I had a job as a festival juror last year which was hell because of this. But that of course is due in large part to the way the medium changes what is made. I personally am worried that when I edit my next film I may not be able to cut it on a flatbed, and what worries me most is not the loss of my fetishistic indulgence, but whether or not I can physically handle the demands of looking at a computer screen for that length of time - whether my own footage will make me ill.
On Aug 19, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Jake B. wrote:
> I think this is an interesting question and perhaps more complex than the food metaphor is allowing. Also, to be fair to Fred, I don't think he's asking anyone to sit around and think about what they might do if film stops existing. I think he's asking us what draws us to making film to begin with.
>
> To be candid, I began working with video out of a lack of means. Even if I were to buy a Super 8 camera (which I did) and film it still wasn't even remotely as cheap as video could be. Yes, video can be expensive, too. But I work with what I can, which is sometimes much, much less than what other people work with. I'll sometimes get asked what editing platform I use. I barely know what an editing platform is. When my iMovie died I started editing with Quicktime. When that stops working I'll do something else. For years I tried to simply make videos as I had conceived of the films I couldn't afford to make. I was only moderatley happy with anything I did. I felt it was derivative, plain, stupid and overly conceptual (which remains true). I then saw the videos of Kyle Canterbury. I can't tell you what an effect they had on me. I was immediately jealous of what he'd done. I remember watching one of them and literally saying out loud "Why hadn't I thought of video like that?!"
>
> Legend has it that when Buster Keaton began making films, he took it upon himself to disassemble a camera and learn about what each individual part inside of it did. Looking at his films today it's easy to see what he was after. His body movements are practically DESIGNED for 18 frames a second. In any event that's what seeing Kyle's work did to me. I even took apart video cameras and consulted old manuals to learn about the specific parts (one was a gift from my mother in law). I shot thousands and thousands of tests (something I still do today) to learn what kind of colors certain cameras could handle and what certain movements would and could do to an image. It took years but I finally began making work I was really happy with. I create images with video that are not possible with film. So, no, I didn't sit around and think about what I would do if I had to work with video. I just worked with video. Pretty soon I began thinking like video. I don't want to work with film but if I had to stop making videos I would simply find another way.
>
> -JB
>
> From: Fred Camper <f_at_fredcamper.com>
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?
>
> I doubt Microsoft or Google would be interested in buying Kodak. They
> tend to buy new technology companies.
>
> I have a question, though, for those horrified by the possible (but,
> in my view and hope, not impending) demise of celluloid. I am
> horrified, too, in terms of the resulting inability to replicate older
> works made to be shown on film. But this is a question for present
> practitioners. Imagine a good high-def or very high-def image shown on
> a projector (DLP?) or monitor of your choice. What is there about your
> particular practice that depends only on celluloid and could not be
> accomplished with video? How major would the loss be for you, and what
> kind of loss is it, and why would it be so major?
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 20:46:57 CDT
