It's the holiday season! I am officially in love. I don't know what it is about Christmas, but every year, this season just brightens my entire demeanor. It's probably a combination of the lights, the music, the beautifully falling snow... and the cookies! But Christmas is more than presents under the tree, you know...
It means HOLIDAY CHRISTMAS SPECIALS ON TV! YES!
It's like every major cable network is imagining each American family with the time and ambition to watch all 25 adaptations of The Santa Clause AND Home Alone... sitting in pajamas by the fireside... sipping hot cocoa and watching 'It's a Wonderful Life.' Psh. Seriously... Who does that?!
(Okay, seriously... my family does that...)
We do. It's a tradition! We have it down to a science, really. There are several Christmas movies that we watch together every single Christmas season, no exceptions. It's kind of strange, there's no other time of year that this happens... like, there's no Easter movie list, or 4th of July Film Fest at the Bart House. Nope. Only the week before Christmas. That's when we magically find time to watch:
- A Charlie Brown Christmas
- A Christmas Story
- Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
- It's a Wonderful Life
- Christmas Vacation
...and slowly making it's way to becoming a regular... Elf.
If anyone asked me if these were good films, I'd probably say something like, "heck to the holiday yes" for each one. But thinking back, even though I've watched these about 12 times each, I've never really watched them objectively.
In the latest reading assignment, David Bordwell discusses for a page or two the significant difference between personal taste and evaluative judgement. He suggests using standard criteria, more than just realistic criteria, too, which would bring fairly harsh judgements upon more than half our Festive Film Five. (Toats just coined that term right now. You don't have to believe me.) Originality, Morality, and Complexity are some of the other criteria suggested by Bordwell... and while I think that those would be good ones for these Christmas films, I might also suggest some others:
1. Point of View: A Christmas Story is ALL OVER this criteria... it's narrated by a grown man, thinking back to a Christmas of his childhood. Because it's told as a memory, certain parts of the story are exaggerated or imagined. It's also brutally honest at points, revealing the difficult harnessing of emotion that this young man experienced. Overall, a great perspective on Christmas, and probably the most quoted film of all time in the Bartholomew household.
2. Timelessness: It's a Wonderful Life has got to be one of the most timeless films of the Christmas season. Not only is it a great display of the classy-and-oh-so-classic Jimmy Stewart, but also a very inspirational motion picture, even winning awards for that very reason. The director of the film, Frank Capra, has said that the film's theme was "the individual's belief in himself," and that the reason he made the film was to "combat a modern trend toward atheism." That would explain the angelic presence of Clarence, and divine intervention that takes place to save George Bailey. Although this film isn't necessarily quoted much in our home, the actual script of this movie has many quotes that can be used outside of the film to inspire and encourage, no matter what the season.
3. Adaptation: That sounds like a weird criteria. I realize this. But what I'm driving at is the fact that many films, or the story of many films, don't start out as films. Both A Christmas Story and It's a Wonderful Life were actually based on books. But what takes the cake for this criteria is A Charlie Brown Christmas, which isn't based on a book, but a comic. This film takes the characters we all know and love from Charles Shultz's classic Peanuts comic and transforms them into talking, moving animations. From a four panel comic strip to a classic short film, I'd say this movie successfully captures the humor, innocence, and creativity of the original Peanuts we all know and love. Plus, with those adorable kids' voices, what could be wrong?
If you need a reminder, check this out, it's the best part of the movie: Linus' Speech. (Fun fact: Notice that when Linus says 'Fear not,' he lets go of his security blanket. Cool, eh?)
I'm sure there are more criteria I could think of that'd be even more objective, and probably a little less biased. But I can't help it... I associate these movies with a few of my favorite things: the Christmas season, my family, and hot cocoa! (Can life get better? I submit that it cannot.) Next week, when I sit down to enjoy a few of these classics with the 'rents, I might just be keeping Bordwell's evaluative judgement tips in mind.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Reading Assignment : [Welles and Toland]
The storm of Halloween recently came upon us. It rushed first into our Wal-Marts, our pumpkin patches, and then to our front porches, filling our lives with jack-o-lanterns, pillowcases of candy, and a rare opportunity to dress up as someone, or something, that we are not. And then, as quickly as it came, it was gone, soon to be replaced by cornucopias, turkeys, and cranberry sauce.
A friend and I were brainstorming famous duo's we could dress up as, and came up with some fairly good ideas. Among them were: Free Willy and Jesse, President Martin and the Golisano Library, or Peter Pan and Tiger Lily. We ended up dressing as one of the best couples in the history of the world (my parents), but really, I think we missed the boat on this one. The perfect duo out there, especially for a couple of film students: Orson Welles and Gregg Toland.
Now that's a duo worth imitating.
The most recent reading, which discussed the making of Citizen Kane, presented Welles and Toland as having the almost perfect working relationship for the film. The two complimented each other entirely, and to be honest, I'm a little jealous of their symmetry. If, for Halloween, my other costumed half and I had known about Welles and Toland earlier, here a few of the qualities we would have had to imitate:
1. Unconventional: A large part of the reason Welles and Toland found each other in the first place was because both were gaining a reputation for unconventionality. As the reading says, this reputation is what attracted Welles to Toland, who also was experienced and award-winning. "His dislike for conventional studio photography was legendary," Carringer writes. (So, rebellious we'd have to be. We probably could have ripped our pants or pierced our faces or something.)
2. Eager to Learn: Before the first shoot was shot, and before the first set was constructed, Toland spent a great deal of time teaching Welles all about cameras, their angles, their lenses, lighting, and more. In return, Welles was able to take this knowledge and realize the potential of using these techniques to dramatically portray his story. Each learned from the other the entire time they worked, and because they were so willing and able to learn new techniques or to use them to portray new ideas, their collaboration worked. (Perhaps our costumes should have incorporated some books and an apple.)
3. Daring: These two men documented film in a way no one had before. It was entirely different than what the 1930's audiences were used to, the traditional soft studio style was disregarded. Carringer writes, "The one thing as much feared in Hollywood as a runaway budget was radical innovation. If the truth were known, Citizen Kane now had both strikes against it." But even with very little support, the men took their new, innovative ideas, and made a film that is remembered to this day as one of the greatest of all time. (Perhaps our costumes should have included a bungee jumping cord or skydiving backpack.)
Overall, I think dressing up as two unconventional, eager to learn, and daring young men would have been a hit for trick-or-treating. I mean, it might have possibly been hard to determine who we were, but think of the lasting legacy we could have left.
Oh well, I guess there's always next Halloween.
A friend and I were brainstorming famous duo's we could dress up as, and came up with some fairly good ideas. Among them were: Free Willy and Jesse, President Martin and the Golisano Library, or Peter Pan and Tiger Lily. We ended up dressing as one of the best couples in the history of the world (my parents), but really, I think we missed the boat on this one. The perfect duo out there, especially for a couple of film students: Orson Welles and Gregg Toland.
Now that's a duo worth imitating.
The most recent reading, which discussed the making of Citizen Kane, presented Welles and Toland as having the almost perfect working relationship for the film. The two complimented each other entirely, and to be honest, I'm a little jealous of their symmetry. If, for Halloween, my other costumed half and I had known about Welles and Toland earlier, here a few of the qualities we would have had to imitate:
1. Unconventional: A large part of the reason Welles and Toland found each other in the first place was because both were gaining a reputation for unconventionality. As the reading says, this reputation is what attracted Welles to Toland, who also was experienced and award-winning. "His dislike for conventional studio photography was legendary," Carringer writes. (So, rebellious we'd have to be. We probably could have ripped our pants or pierced our faces or something.)
2. Eager to Learn: Before the first shoot was shot, and before the first set was constructed, Toland spent a great deal of time teaching Welles all about cameras, their angles, their lenses, lighting, and more. In return, Welles was able to take this knowledge and realize the potential of using these techniques to dramatically portray his story. Each learned from the other the entire time they worked, and because they were so willing and able to learn new techniques or to use them to portray new ideas, their collaboration worked. (Perhaps our costumes should have incorporated some books and an apple.)
3. Daring: These two men documented film in a way no one had before. It was entirely different than what the 1930's audiences were used to, the traditional soft studio style was disregarded. Carringer writes, "The one thing as much feared in Hollywood as a runaway budget was radical innovation. If the truth were known, Citizen Kane now had both strikes against it." But even with very little support, the men took their new, innovative ideas, and made a film that is remembered to this day as one of the greatest of all time. (Perhaps our costumes should have included a bungee jumping cord or skydiving backpack.)
Overall, I think dressing up as two unconventional, eager to learn, and daring young men would have been a hit for trick-or-treating. I mean, it might have possibly been hard to determine who we were, but think of the lasting legacy we could have left.
Oh well, I guess there's always next Halloween.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Reading Assignment : 4 [Shape-Ups for Film!]
I tried Shape-Ups on once.
It's not something I freely admit very often, so if you're reading this, consider yourself lucky. (And try not to share that information with too many people that you think I might be trying to impress.)
Those shoes are like boats. Seriously. They're huge, and... wavy... And I feel like I'm walking on water (shout-out to JC, hollaaaa!) when I wear them. It's very strange. I don't think I could've handled Shape-Ups as shoes. However, I can handle a reading about shaping up film!
I will write about this reading through one of my favorite literary devices: an acrostic poem.
S - Style. Style, in the sense of film, is best friends with Imagination. The two hold hands and skip around the filming world, limited only by each other in the filmmaker's mind. You can have a documentary in a realistic style, yes, but why not fantasy, humor, parody? The more original the style, the more memorable the film.
H - Having some type of HStructure. Structure is probably the most confusing element to read about, and the most difficult to find, but from what I understood, it encompasses the way in which a filmmaker will organize the film and how it moves from one topic, location, or time period, to another. It can be either 'natural or invented' and finding the right structure is, as Rosenthal suggests, 'a gift from God.' Can't say I'm aware of that gift in my heaven-sent care package.
A - Approach. The main two choices for approaching a film are essay or narrative, but choosing one depends on the topic and characters. Most people prefer stories, so narrative might be a good way to lean.
P - Please remember to include PForm. Form, although closely related to structure, is still very important to include, and is another way in which the plot is organized. It focuses more on the framework of the film, though, not so much the order. (To be honest, there was no actual titled paragraph about form 'til it was mentioned at the end of the reading, so it's hard to tell any other differences. Maybe that in itself is another 'gift from God.')
E - Examples to End with! The end of the reading included a bunch of examples! Which means I can go back and refer to them for further clarification, if I want. And that's just magnificent.
Cue: snaps for my original acrostic poem. I know you all will want to print this out and hang it on your wall, but please, allow me to autograph a copy of it, first.
Also, I dare you try on a pair of Shape-Ups. And then explain to me how they can be worth $149.99.
It's not something I freely admit very often, so if you're reading this, consider yourself lucky. (And try not to share that information with too many people that you think I might be trying to impress.)
Those shoes are like boats. Seriously. They're huge, and... wavy... And I feel like I'm walking on water (shout-out to JC, hollaaaa!) when I wear them. It's very strange. I don't think I could've handled Shape-Ups as shoes. However, I can handle a reading about shaping up film!
I will write about this reading through one of my favorite literary devices: an acrostic poem.
S - Style. Style, in the sense of film, is best friends with Imagination. The two hold hands and skip around the filming world, limited only by each other in the filmmaker's mind. You can have a documentary in a realistic style, yes, but why not fantasy, humor, parody? The more original the style, the more memorable the film.
H - Having some type of HStructure. Structure is probably the most confusing element to read about, and the most difficult to find, but from what I understood, it encompasses the way in which a filmmaker will organize the film and how it moves from one topic, location, or time period, to another. It can be either 'natural or invented' and finding the right structure is, as Rosenthal suggests, 'a gift from God.' Can't say I'm aware of that gift in my heaven-sent care package.
A - Approach. The main two choices for approaching a film are essay or narrative, but choosing one depends on the topic and characters. Most people prefer stories, so narrative might be a good way to lean.
P - Please remember to include PForm. Form, although closely related to structure, is still very important to include, and is another way in which the plot is organized. It focuses more on the framework of the film, though, not so much the order. (To be honest, there was no actual titled paragraph about form 'til it was mentioned at the end of the reading, so it's hard to tell any other differences. Maybe that in itself is another 'gift from God.')
E - Examples to End with! The end of the reading included a bunch of examples! Which means I can go back and refer to them for further clarification, if I want. And that's just magnificent.
Cue: snaps for my original acrostic poem. I know you all will want to print this out and hang it on your wall, but please, allow me to autograph a copy of it, first.
Also, I dare you try on a pair of Shape-Ups. And then explain to me how they can be worth $149.99.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Reading Assignment : 3 [Lighting]
LET THERE BE LIGHT!
(I figured that's a fairly relevant quote to open this one off with. Plus God said it, so that alone should get me some points, right?)
Light was the first creation of God.
I mean, that's saying something.
Obviously, if that's what He created first, it must have been necessary for the rest of creation to operate. So why wouldn't that be an initial consideration when I am making my own creation?
Our sight is based on light. Without it, that entire sense is eliminated. So, for an art or media where visual elements are the primary components, light is essential. Badda bing, badda boom... that's the bottom line I got from this reading. Light: ya gotta have it when ya film, and ya gotta do it right.
Ronald J. Compesi, lighting extraordinaire. His writing is very straightforward, a basic manual to follow, and many of the sections discussed items that I had already known or we just practiced in class. There are several pieces of the lighting puzzle, however, that he pointed out which I hadn't before realized. They are as follows:
1 - There are physical factors and aesthetic factors of lighting. [You don't just need the right equipment to do the right things, you need to know how to use this equipment in order to achieve the best quality shot.]
2 - Three point lighting = best case scenario. Use it, and use it well for a (mostly) trouble-free shoot.
3 - If you're not attaining the lighting you want, there's a lot you can do to change it, while working with the same lamps/lighting equipment. Making the lamps play dress up with gels, veils, or cloth can dramatically affect the shot, along with the position/location of the lights, and additional props, like reflectors.
4 - It's probably best to look into power requirements before you plug in a lamp and blow it/you/a fuse up.
I also thought that the table of Common Lighting Problems on p. 192 looks promising. A good go-to guide during set-up (while I'm still a total amateur, you see).
Overall, I'd say the read, while pretty dry, was fairly enlightening.
(I figured that's a fairly relevant quote to open this one off with. Plus God said it, so that alone should get me some points, right?)
Light was the first creation of God.
I mean, that's saying something.
Obviously, if that's what He created first, it must have been necessary for the rest of creation to operate. So why wouldn't that be an initial consideration when I am making my own creation?
Our sight is based on light. Without it, that entire sense is eliminated. So, for an art or media where visual elements are the primary components, light is essential. Badda bing, badda boom... that's the bottom line I got from this reading. Light: ya gotta have it when ya film, and ya gotta do it right.
Ronald J. Compesi, lighting extraordinaire. His writing is very straightforward, a basic manual to follow, and many of the sections discussed items that I had already known or we just practiced in class. There are several pieces of the lighting puzzle, however, that he pointed out which I hadn't before realized. They are as follows:
1 - There are physical factors and aesthetic factors of lighting. [You don't just need the right equipment to do the right things, you need to know how to use this equipment in order to achieve the best quality shot.]
2 - Three point lighting = best case scenario. Use it, and use it well for a (mostly) trouble-free shoot.
3 - If you're not attaining the lighting you want, there's a lot you can do to change it, while working with the same lamps/lighting equipment. Making the lamps play dress up with gels, veils, or cloth can dramatically affect the shot, along with the position/location of the lights, and additional props, like reflectors.
4 - It's probably best to look into power requirements before you plug in a lamp and blow it/you/a fuse up.
I also thought that the table of Common Lighting Problems on p. 192 looks promising. A good go-to guide during set-up (while I'm still a total amateur, you see).
Overall, I'd say the read, while pretty dry, was fairly enlightening.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Words.
I don't know how many remember me mentioning this video once in class, but I thought I'd post it now for ya'll to check out.
[See Words video here!]
Besides being quite clever and interesting, I think it's a good demonstration of what is truly necessary in a video work, and what you really don't need. (i.e., You don't need to spell everything out for a viewer.)
Our brain is wired to make connections. That's how it works. I'm in a class right now called Creativity and Problem Solving, and our textbook ("Thinkertoys," which I will freely confess that I actually like, so go ahead, slap that "nerdy academic" label on me...) lists a bunch of exercises developed to help you solve problems creatively. (Appropriate for such a class, eh?) One exercise is called "Brutethink" and is concentrated on creating new ideas by forcing yourself to make connections between two seemingly random ideas or objects. (It's kind of hard to explain, you see. However, I am more than willing to discuss it, seeing as how I love the book. Come find me.)
Anyway, in that chapter, Michalko writes, "The human brain cannot deliberately concentrate on two separate objects or ideas without eventually forming a connection between them. No two inputs can remain separate in your mind no matter how remote they are from each other."
(Time out. Our God is so cool. He totally did that on purpose. Time in.)
That's why a video like this one can work. As soon as we see an image of the word "play" and then a sword fight on stage, our minds do not think "sword fight," we think "play!" We make the connection on our own. (Virtual high-fives, all around.)
Another good example of this is in the one documentary we watched in class last week, which featured a son interviewing his father about their family's history. (I don't remember the name of it now... my deepest apologies.) Throughout the film, the audio remained constant, an interview between a father and son, but the pictures shown (a boxing match, a tree, a crowd of photographers...) were completely different from the conversation. When a picture of the boxing match was shown, the two men were not discussing boxing, but the audience was able to make the connection between the verbal fight they were hearing between the men and the physical fight on the screen. It was an interesting way to convey a message to your viewer. I think it could be a creative little sumthin' sumthin' to keep your back pocket as we start working on our next projects, too.
So enjoy the video. Watch it more than once. Listen to the sound effects, the music. Note the crazy variety in locations and shots. And make the connections, find the "words," on your own.
Happy Weekend-ing!
P.S. If you liked "Words," you might also like Moments. (Note: there are a couple graphic clips in that one... like blood... Kinda caught me off guard the first time. Just be ready.) :)
[See Words video here!]
Besides being quite clever and interesting, I think it's a good demonstration of what is truly necessary in a video work, and what you really don't need. (i.e., You don't need to spell everything out for a viewer.)
Our brain is wired to make connections. That's how it works. I'm in a class right now called Creativity and Problem Solving, and our textbook ("Thinkertoys," which I will freely confess that I actually like, so go ahead, slap that "nerdy academic" label on me...) lists a bunch of exercises developed to help you solve problems creatively. (Appropriate for such a class, eh?) One exercise is called "Brutethink" and is concentrated on creating new ideas by forcing yourself to make connections between two seemingly random ideas or objects. (It's kind of hard to explain, you see. However, I am more than willing to discuss it, seeing as how I love the book. Come find me.)
Anyway, in that chapter, Michalko writes, "The human brain cannot deliberately concentrate on two separate objects or ideas without eventually forming a connection between them. No two inputs can remain separate in your mind no matter how remote they are from each other."
(Time out. Our God is so cool. He totally did that on purpose. Time in.)
That's why a video like this one can work. As soon as we see an image of the word "play" and then a sword fight on stage, our minds do not think "sword fight," we think "play!" We make the connection on our own. (Virtual high-fives, all around.)
Another good example of this is in the one documentary we watched in class last week, which featured a son interviewing his father about their family's history. (I don't remember the name of it now... my deepest apologies.) Throughout the film, the audio remained constant, an interview between a father and son, but the pictures shown (a boxing match, a tree, a crowd of photographers...) were completely different from the conversation. When a picture of the boxing match was shown, the two men were not discussing boxing, but the audience was able to make the connection between the verbal fight they were hearing between the men and the physical fight on the screen. It was an interesting way to convey a message to your viewer. I think it could be a creative little sumthin' sumthin' to keep your back pocket as we start working on our next projects, too.
So enjoy the video. Watch it more than once. Listen to the sound effects, the music. Note the crazy variety in locations and shots. And make the connections, find the "words," on your own.
Happy Weekend-ing!
P.S. If you liked "Words," you might also like Moments. (Note: there are a couple graphic clips in that one... like blood... Kinda caught me off guard the first time. Just be ready.) :)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Reading Assignment : 2 [Audio]
I cannot imagine being deaf.
I've tried to, several times, and even learned a ton of American Sign Language when I was younger to communicate with a few friends that are deaf.
But life without sound? I can't get there.
Funny thing is, as much as I have worked with video in the past, I really don't have any experience with microphones. Microphones and I aren't really friends. Basically, after all the video that I shoot, I delete the audio entirely and add in something else instead (a song, a separate dialogue, etc.) because lining up the sound in each shot has been fairly difficult in the past. That being said, I think that this latest reading assignment is just what I need, a how-to-manual for folks like me who have avoided all mike use in the past. Perfect!
To be honest, I felt like some of the material covered in this reading was too advanced for me to follow, or something I would rather be figuring out with the microphones and equipment at hand. However, I think much of it will be valuable in the future, once it is known what we have available in the lab and what we do with it. I understand how this information is key for future projects.
A few ideas or tidbits that I will jostle around in my head:
1. A "wild track" of sounds that you can record on the scene to use as a common soundtrack through scene cuts and editing. It's something I never thought of before, and I can definitely see how this would be useful.
2. The plethora of problems associated with relying solely on the camera mike... issues of distance, moving subjects, surroundings, etc. Quality of sound is only enhanced with the true microphone. (Obviously camera mikes lie.)
3. Preparations before actually shooting are invaluable. Thinking ahead to anticipate the unexpected will most likely save a lot of time and frustration in the editing process.
4. Appropriate and inappropriate uses for music/sound effects that are entirely post-production. There's pro's and con's to 'em all, and a lot of factors to think about.
I think that just about does it for me. Tune in next week for Reading Assignment : 3. And before that, a new sweet post about something... new and sweet... :)
I've tried to, several times, and even learned a ton of American Sign Language when I was younger to communicate with a few friends that are deaf.
But life without sound? I can't get there.
Funny thing is, as much as I have worked with video in the past, I really don't have any experience with microphones. Microphones and I aren't really friends. Basically, after all the video that I shoot, I delete the audio entirely and add in something else instead (a song, a separate dialogue, etc.) because lining up the sound in each shot has been fairly difficult in the past. That being said, I think that this latest reading assignment is just what I need, a how-to-manual for folks like me who have avoided all mike use in the past. Perfect!
To be honest, I felt like some of the material covered in this reading was too advanced for me to follow, or something I would rather be figuring out with the microphones and equipment at hand. However, I think much of it will be valuable in the future, once it is known what we have available in the lab and what we do with it. I understand how this information is key for future projects.
A few ideas or tidbits that I will jostle around in my head:
1. A "wild track" of sounds that you can record on the scene to use as a common soundtrack through scene cuts and editing. It's something I never thought of before, and I can definitely see how this would be useful.
2. The plethora of problems associated with relying solely on the camera mike... issues of distance, moving subjects, surroundings, etc. Quality of sound is only enhanced with the true microphone. (Obviously camera mikes lie.)
3. Preparations before actually shooting are invaluable. Thinking ahead to anticipate the unexpected will most likely save a lot of time and frustration in the editing process.
4. Appropriate and inappropriate uses for music/sound effects that are entirely post-production. There's pro's and con's to 'em all, and a lot of factors to think about.
I think that just about does it for me. Tune in next week for Reading Assignment : 3. And before that, a new sweet post about something... new and sweet... :)
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Reading Assignment : 1 [Video vs. Film]
Well. This John Belton fellow is pretty opinionated, ain't he?!
After reading the article "Looking through Video," it's pretty clear that Belton doesn't think video can measure up to film, and that the emergence of video has impacted cinema more negatively than positively.
I think his main points are plausible; there can be huge differences in quality, capability, and experience. However, I do think that video (as in videotape and television) has advanced greatly since the time when Belton wrote this article. The way film is used is very different than the way video is used. Yes, critic, I hear you. "Don't they both record images/sounds? Aren't they both primarily making movies?" (And first of all, I don't even know how to define "movie" because before reading this article I interchanged "film" and "video" from time to time, which, apparently, might send me to a Filming School Principal's office.) Primarily, however, the purpose for film is to make feature movies... 'cinema'... grand elaborate sequences of scenes, complete with soundtracks and popcorn munchin' heads. The process is going to be more physical because the time constraints allow it, the editing is a huge part of this. Digital video, on the other hand, is compared to television broadcasts. Obviously, in these instances, the time constraints allow little time for editing, and efficiency overrules effectiveness. Television editing is going to be much different than film editing, as much of it is done during the recording process. Newscasts especially. If video allows this type of immediacy, a return on a short time period, this is definitely going to be choice for those that need efficiency, a news broadcaster, a sitcom producer that's expected to have another hour episode each week.
I don't think video is necessarily a threat to film. Film is continually changing, yes, and the cleaner and safer technology becomes the more it will be used within the film-making process, but I believe the two will remain separate for quite some time yet. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy both.
After reading the article "Looking through Video," it's pretty clear that Belton doesn't think video can measure up to film, and that the emergence of video has impacted cinema more negatively than positively.
I think his main points are plausible; there can be huge differences in quality, capability, and experience. However, I do think that video (as in videotape and television) has advanced greatly since the time when Belton wrote this article. The way film is used is very different than the way video is used. Yes, critic, I hear you. "Don't they both record images/sounds? Aren't they both primarily making movies?" (And first of all, I don't even know how to define "movie" because before reading this article I interchanged "film" and "video" from time to time, which, apparently, might send me to a Filming School Principal's office.) Primarily, however, the purpose for film is to make feature movies... 'cinema'... grand elaborate sequences of scenes, complete with soundtracks and popcorn munchin' heads. The process is going to be more physical because the time constraints allow it, the editing is a huge part of this. Digital video, on the other hand, is compared to television broadcasts. Obviously, in these instances, the time constraints allow little time for editing, and efficiency overrules effectiveness. Television editing is going to be much different than film editing, as much of it is done during the recording process. Newscasts especially. If video allows this type of immediacy, a return on a short time period, this is definitely going to be choice for those that need efficiency, a news broadcaster, a sitcom producer that's expected to have another hour episode each week.
I don't think video is necessarily a threat to film. Film is continually changing, yes, and the cleaner and safer technology becomes the more it will be used within the film-making process, but I believe the two will remain separate for quite some time yet. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)