SCREEN-L Archives

June 1995, Week 5

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:
Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 28 Jun 1995 22:28:12 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
On the issue of using video for film SJ Fore writes:
 
 
> Well, this is pretty much an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin question for
> many of us, I think. Certainly, I'd prefer to use film, and I'd prefer
> to use 35mm rather than 16mm. However, I teach classes such as "Third
> World" Film and Chinese Film, and the celluloid resources here have been and
> continue to be slim indeed--New Yorker, Third World Newsreel, some
> consulates, etc. So I use a *lot* of video 'cause it's the only way to
> get access to movies that I want the students to see. . . Will "new"
 technologies (e.g., HDTV, cdrom,
> video-on-demand) help to alleviate these problems of resolution, aspect
> ratio, and availability? Or will small players not be able to buy into a
  market dominated by Rupert Murdoch and telecom corporations?
>
> Steve Fore
 
Actually it may be a kind of dancing on the head of a pin question, but then
i suppose that all theory is subject to the same strictures . . . it's pretty
clear that for many of us video is the only way to go . . . but that doesn't
address the question of why it's merely second best, of why steve fore would
"prefer to use film." The fundamental question remains, and it is a nagging
one: what, IN PRINCIPLE, is lost when we access cinematic texts through video
channels?
 
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2