The first dozen or so responses to my inquiry about the ethics and theory of
using video for film were virtually all in favor of doing so . . . the only
voice raised against it was that of Gene Stavis, who wrote as follows:
 
 
> re: Using videos for film --
>
> There is also the psychological aspect. That is, seeing a "film" in a theater
> situation is a specific environmental experience. You are in the dark; you
> are with an audience of a varied nature; the picture is MUCH bigger than you
> are; the progress of the experience is completely out of your hands. Short of
> a fire in the theater, the film will grind on as the operator is in a
> soundproof booth, cut off from the audience.
>
> Video is the very reverse. The room need not be as dark; you are with an
> audience (or without an audience) of your choosing; the picture is relatively
> small and unimposing (even projected, the image is degraded to the point
> where it is not graphically impressive); the progress of the experience is
> almost totally under your control - you can stop, repeat, freeze, rewind,
> vary the speed, skip over sequences. And, interruptions are much more
> frequent, and tolerated.
>
> In short, with film the experience is bigger than you are and you relinquish
> control; with video, the image is much less impressive and it is always under
> your control.
>
> Furthermore, with video, the image is presented on the same screen which, in
> our experience, delivers the most disposable of images: commercials, tabloid
> news; O.J. trial coverage; infomercials, etc. Whether a film is good or bad,
> trash or treasure, its presentation takes on the element of special event,
> even ritual, which is totally lacking in video.
>
> Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
>
> P.S. People who use video in place of films are neither villains nor
> charlatans. They are victims of expediency and budget restraints. It is
> becoming harder and harder to find film copies of movies, the equipment is
> barely manufactured anymore and the film rentals are many times the price of
> owning a video. It is a crime, but certainly not the fault entirely of
> teachers.
 
Although in his view those of us who use video are not criminals, the
procedure itself still "is a crime."  Perhaps so, but since his argument has
largely to do with a) size of image; b) ambient light and sounds; and c) the
viewer's control of the watching experience, i want to raise the following:
 
        WHEN I SHOW A VIDEO OF A MOVIE TO MY CLASS, I USE A VIDEO PROJECTION
        SYSTEM, I SHOW IT IN THE VERY SAME ROOM, COMPLETELY DARKENED, THAT IS
        ALSO USED FOR 16MM PROJECTION OF FILMS; THE PROJECTED IMAGE TAKES UP
        ALMOST THE SAME SIZE ON THE SCREEN AS THAT FROM THE 16 MM PROJECTOR;
        THE ROOM IS EXACTLY AS DARK AS FOR FILM; THE KIDS SIT IN THE SAME
        SEATS; AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER THE IMAGE; IT RUNS
        TILL I STOP IT.
 
while it's surely true that most of us watch video under dramatically
different conditions than we "go to the movies," i wonder whether any of those
particular factors ramin in play under the circumstances described above
 
mike frank   <[log in to unmask]>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]