[Frameworks] film scholarship inquiry

[Tom Whiteside]

Frameworkers -
                For those of you interested in film scholarship:  I have a book checked out from the library. Title is "The Film Studies Dictionary," by Blandford, Grant, and Hillier, published 2001 in London by Arnold and same year in New York by Oxford University Press. I picked it up on a whim, it was nearby when I found what I was looking for. This is a dictionary, arranged alphabetically, but of course the numerical entries come first. I found so many mistakes I never even made it past "A."

                The entry for "35mm film" states that it was introduced in 1899, which is incorrect. 35mm film was introduced in 1889 by most accounts; putting it one decade late overlooks both Edison's Kinetoscope and Lumiere's premiere program, arguably the two most important events in the early development of motion pictures, and both of which, quite famously, used 35mm film. At first I thought "it's just a typo;" nonetheless it is a very bad start. On the next page in the entry "8mm," it states that 8mm film has sprocket holes on both sides. This is not only incorrect, it is quite stupid - if 8mm film was double perf there would be no room at all for the image. (Yes, I know that "double 8" film starts out 16mm wide with perfs on both sides, but 8mm film does not have sprocket holes on both sides.) It also states that 8mm was "largely replaced by Super 8mm after 1966."  Why wait a year for that? Super 8 was introduced in 1965.

                Under the entry "abstract film" it states that Man Ray's "Return to Reason" features "barely recognizable images of nails and pins placed directly on the exposed filmstrip."  I have had a 16mm print of "Return to Reason" for 25 years and can attest that the images of nails and pins are razor sharp and they are completely recognizable. Furthermore, stills of these strips have been reprinted in any number of books for decades, and as anyone can see they are not "barely recognizable" but are (excuse me) as sharp as a tack. And of course they were placed directly on the unexposed film strip in Man Ray's darkroom. Jiminy Cricket!

                Three film scholars collaborated on this, and presumably there was some editorial oversight by the publisher(s). The entries are short, concise, and way too frequently WRONG. The first three pages contain five mistakes that I could find. This is a reference book for crying out loud. I didn't, and can't, read any further, but if you have this book in your library please give it a go. Might be fun to see how bad the rest of it is. I have notified my library of this situation, not sure what they will, or can, do about it. If you know anyone in the publishing houses of Arnold or Oxford University Press you might want to make them aware of this.


                - Tom Whiteside                        Durham Cinematheque


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20130723/cdf57833/attachment.html>