[Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?

[Anna Biller]

I really don't see a "wholesale dismissal" of video in any way. Video has been steadily on the ascendant and film on the decline for many years now. If you're asking me personally if I would stop making movies if film were no longer available, I can't really say. But I do know for certain that the ideas I pursued with video would be entirely different, because I would want to work with the medium instead of against it. There is a real possibility that I would stop making movies, perhaps in favor of some other art form. But I don't think that if someone likes working in a particular medium that means they are disparaging another medium. I certainly don't think I'm doing that. But I am going to continue to insist that the differences are great and important, not just to me, but objectively.


On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:27 PM, matt's frameworks address wrote:

> I don't think anyone is making an argument that video can or should replace film, nor is anyone saying we don't need to preserve films such as Cat's Cradle on film.  to me that's a given- if anything about my post suggested otherwise than i will try to be more clear. 
> 
> i would also suggest that, shooting on film stocks available today, it would be "TECHNICALLY impossible" to achieve all the effects in Cat's Cradle that you mention.  but i will agree with you 100% that digital effects to make video look like film (i.e. grain filters) are silly and full of contradiction.  by no means am i suggesting that a few film-look filters will ever replace celluloid.
> 
> if celluloid did go away, and we were only left with HD, would the differences in "perception, experience, process..." that you mention make you stop watching movies?  stop making movies?  this is a serious question and i don't intend to sound snarky.  film grain, flicker, and the like are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things i look for and appreciate in cinema.   i agree that we are in danger of losing some great works and great traditions, and applaud efforts to conserve them.  but i just don't understand the wholesale dismissal of all things video-  i've seen work that's changed my life on both film and "empty and lifeless" video (i have seen a lot of crap on both formats as well).
> 
> i don't know.  i am just far too excited about making movies to let some giant corporation who could care less about my craft break my stride.  film, video, shadow puppets... what ever it takes.
> 
> -matt
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Anna Biller <pbutterfly at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> The more relevant question would be, how would CAT'S CRADLE look if SHOT on video? It seems clear to me that no such picture could ever be created on video, no many how many filters and special effects and film grain and what-not you added to it. Such a thing would be TECHNICALLY impossible. All of the effects that are achieved belong exclusively to film. Anyone who doubts this need only take a look at the film itself. Anyone who wants to can try to make an argument about how a similar effect could be achieved on video. But as others have pointed out, such effects are not organic to video, so it would be sort of a pointless experiment. When film disappears, images such as the ones we see in that film will also disappear. DIfferent people may have different levels of sadness or indifference or happiness or whatever about that. I personally consider it a HUGE loss. The fact that many or most won't even notice doesn't make it any less of a loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -------------------------------
> www.rodeofilmco.com
> -------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20110822/f7026e42/attachment.html