SCREEN-L Archives

June 2001, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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

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

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Anthony Rocha <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:03:47 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
In a message dated 6/5/01 5:58:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> the effect of aesthetic decisions (for example, long takes
> don't work the same in video as in film)" . . .
>
> can someone explain why a long take on film should be
> significantly different in aesthetic quality than a long
> take on video
>
>

He's wrong.

He's talking about the visual quality and the nature of the physical elements
of the two mediums. It does not matter at your level and would be wrong for
you to focus on it.

A long take works in both mediums if the goal is to understand film story
telling technique and NOT to put together your DP reel for a job on
"Survivor."

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2