----------------------------- Begin Original Text
-----------------------------
 
 I don't see
how watching a Star Wars battle scene normally the first time and then
slowing
it down to see precisely how it was cut together, how the mise-en-scene was
arranged, etc., would trivialize that scene or the filmmakers' intent.
 
----------------------------- End Original Text -----------------------------
 
In a utopian world, we would be able to see a "film" under the conditions
deemed appropriate by the filmmaker and we would then be able to use the very
handy medium of tape or disc to analyze the film and learn from it.
 
However, in the real world, "film" projection is becoming less and less
common in academic circles. The shrinking supply of 16mm prints, the budget
constraints which make video welcome in the shrinking budgets of academe and
the reduced "trouble" in presentation have all transformed the way in which
film is taught.
 
We have now (surprise, surprise) academics not only accepting this state of
affairs, but arguing that the situation is actually BETTER than a time when
film presentation was more common. The question has been asked, what value
does a film presentation have that a video presentation lacks. In trying to
answer this, to me, fairly obvious question, we have become enmeshed in an
unfortunate film vs. video debate.
 
I think debates are great and I have throroughly enjoyed this one. But, what
does it have to do with real life? Has anyone been convinced one way or the
other here? I doubt it. We who feel that film is the preferred method will
continue to struggle against the tide. Those who are satisfied with tape will
come up with compelling reasons why there is no difference between the two.
 
I am, however, concerned about the students of film who will emerge from
these battles (most never knowing there IS a battle), with a diminished
vision of what film can be. Their preconception of films of the past as
pallid, dated and primitive will be reinforced. Classic films will be little
more than curiosities -- footnotes in some professors' theories about
"signing".
 
I don't think it is an accident that many filmmakers of today are creating
flashy, but empty exercises in empty style. Their entire experience of films
of the past are these reduced video images presented on the same screen as
Ty-D-Bowl commercials and re-runs of "Wheel of Fortune" -- disposable items,
perhaps valuable as camp exercises and proof positive of the present day's
superiority to the past.
 
Theorists have succeeded in taming these once viscerally exciting kinesthetic
experiences into dry, dusty "data" -- footnotes for grandiose theories. The
exciting experience of seeing a sharp image on a huge screen in a dark room
with an audience of strangers is a thing of the past. That humbling, exciting
and even erotic experience has been replaced by a puny multiplex/video
experience -- entirely at odds with the way in which these films were meant
to be experienced. I mourn that situation and will try my damndest with my
students to give them an authentic cinematic experience -- not simply a
"text" equivalent.
 
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts -- NYC
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]