First, thanks to all who responded to my query re an advanced production text.

It brought up an issue that I have continued to struggle with throughout my

pedagogic and professional career, namely film or video bias in the language of

production.  I'm curious what others have experienced, or if I'm making much ado

about nothing, so to speak.

 

My experience is strongly rooted in _video_ production, an in my experience the

language is clear (if at times sexist): we don't "film" anything, rather we

"shoot" or "tape", etc.  The field is peopled with videographers and camera

_operators_ (the old-timers still call them camera men...), etc.

 

In my search for academic texts, most contain an introductory disclaimer that

while the text is intended for both film and video production, the universal

language of film will be used.  Barry Hampe's _Video Scriptwriting_, for

example, makes the claim that the expression "to film" is now appropriate

regardless of the medium.

 

I recognize that this language has long been utilized by the consumer film and

video manufacturers, attempting to capitalize on the "home movie" market, and is

probably the main reason my students arrive in my video class anxious to make

"movies" and "go out and _film_ something." Gack!

 

Call me a video snob, but I still hold onto the still-emerging language that is

specific to video production, and attempt to correct its sexism.  Is this

anachronistic?  I don't think so, but would welcome the experiences of others.

 

 

Chad Dell

Department of Communication Arts

University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

[log in to unmask]