SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 10 Jul 1995 13:20:32 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
as the initiator of the film/video discussion, i have to comment on Juan M.
Gonzalez's recent very fair minded, thoughtful, and detailed contribution
 
after giving what has thus far been the best description of the MATERIAL
diferences between the two media, differences that no one has denied, he adds
an observation that, i think, allows for the first time a way to
conceptualize the role and significance of those differences . . . he admits
that "Video allows for the study of CINEMA (not film)", making an intersting
distinction, and then articulates the distinction with a wonderful idea,
namely that "we consider cinema as the language of the moving picture, and
film as a medium, then video is another medium in which cinema can be
viewed."
 
enthusiasm of any sort seems to me a bit tasteless but that is, i think,
a brilliant notion, for it allows those who care about the medium to retain
one set of priorities, while admitting that those who care more about the
kinds of texts created by or communicated through that medium may well have
other resources available to them
 
 
JMG's rich comments deserve much more response--in particlar perhaps his
appropriation of berger (and the unstated though latent walter benjamin
intertext) . . . but i hope this will do for starters
 
mike frank
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2