SCREEN-L Archives

June 2000, 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:
Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:42:49 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
In a message dated 6/10/00 11:08:35 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

>They know -- and accept -- the one thing most of us hate to acknowledge;
>that many film viewers (or "disinterested layfolks") are more interested
>in story and characters. Not visual composition. The heathens who hate
>letter-box. Hate it (even filmmakers such as William Friedkin have been
>known to utter such blasphemy). So... filmmakers either resort to less
>extreme aspect ratios, or tolerate pan-and-scan. It just makes good
>business sense now that films can make more money on video, TV and
>satellite than theatres.

Are you arguing that visual composition is entirely unrelated to story and
character? That seems to be an entire argument in and of itself... (OCC:
The Graduate)

I agree that filmmakers have to consider the home market, but I think the key
is in the fact that knowing and accepting, as you have put it, are not the
same as preferring. John Carpenter has said that he supervises the pan and
scan process because it is the only way he can salvage his film--in other
words, the process would occur with or without his input. The fact that he
begrudgingly participates does not in any way mean that he sits on set,
looking at his monitor and saying, "Is this going to look good on TV?"

I think your argument is sound, but the conclusions you draw from it--that
most filmmakers consciously shoot for video--are not. Even your Egoyan
quote, in reference to his viewing the pan and scan process as a chance to
re-edit, only underscores the fact that he was not consciously shooting for
the home video market originally. One can easily derive that Egoyan sees
home video as a different market, a specific counter to your more general
claim concerning the tendencies of "most" filmmakers.

I, for one, am not loathe to acknowledge your claim: that most people's first
experience of a film will be a cropped version on video. That does not mean
that I have to give up *my* right to experience them otherwise (be it in a
theater or on widescreen video), or the right of filmmakers to compose in
whatever ratio they prefer (and to make that ratio available to those who
wish to view it "as the filmmaker intended").

Ed

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

ATOM RSS1 RSS2