in pip chodorov's interesting recent question:
 
 
 > Interestingly, the rarest of all occurences in film time is 1:1; that is, a
 > film which lasts 90 minutes that represents 90 minutes of real time
 > (Hitchcock's ROPE is full of theatrical time elipses, and even Warhol had to
 > stop to load his camera when filming EMPIRE). Any ideas on this?
 
does the phrase "real time" refer to the represented or diegetic time--in
which case ROPE would seem to serve as a good example--or does it refer to an
actual correspondence between the time it took to record the film and the
time it takes to project it back--in which case we're talking about a 1:1
correspondence that exits only as a matter of historical record but is not
itself inscribed in the finished film . . . in which case i'm not sure why it
matters . . . perhaps there's something i'm missing
 
 
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]