Subject: Video from Film Mike Frank; I've been reading with interest some of the exchanges regarding the use of video in film study. I cannot recall who asked the original question but I felt I must address it with you directly. In July 10 Screen-L you finished with: "my only concern is whether it is a better representation of THE SAME THING, or whether the thing being represented, the signified itself, is somehow changed in some significant way by the translation to video. that is the issue that i believe remains unresolved." This is an area which I have been examining very closely for the past couple of decades. I have avoided entering the online exchange because I felt that there were many issues that need airing and felt I would only be clouding things by adding my two-bits. I believe that film study should also include media study. That is, it should include an examination of the effects of various environments created by media and technology as being significant to the experience of the messages or communication experience. Inadvertently the availability of videocassettes to film study has allowed for a broadening of the scope of study material but has also had the effect of completely transformed the viewing experience. Where once 16mm and 35mm prints were screened in the appropriate venue before, we now lament that economics dictate we narrow our study to the content of the film by way of a transcription to videotape. If film study is only about the content of the film and not about the watching, social effects, and political aftermath of film experiences then there is little lost in the translation to videocassette viewing. If the study of film examines the environment, politics, social issues, and prevailing myths of the time a film played in theaters, then it is important to immerse the student in that environment (however displaced in time and style) for which the original viewing was intended. Stories and reports about the reactions of audiences to various pivotal films seem as important to the study of film as any of the stories told with the camera itself. Where I believe the least understood impact of viewing videotape to the process of studying film lay is in the processing of information by the individual experiencing the transmission. Seen in the context of milliseconds of conscious thought, film is a momentary flash of image which requires the brain to dwell on the "impression" long enough to maintain closure between frames and establish the illusion of a continuous moving image. In that same time frame video asks the brain to trace an electron beam across the surface of the display and construct the image out of a mosaic of dots, allowing less time to dwell on the "impression" that the image forms. The significance of this difference is easily overlooked when the metaphors for each of the technologies use similar words. Video frames are completely different from film frames. Video "bandwidth" is completely unlike film "resolution" but they are both determining the clarity of the "images". So, I hope this goes some distance toward explaining how the person experiencing the environment created by the interlaced scanning electron tube will understand a film differently than a person experiencing the rapid slide show environment created by motion picture projection. Both will agree on the content but will never share the context of the intended viewing experience. In addition to this rather psycho-neural difference is the subtle effect of projections being "light on" something and video being "light through" which is addressed somewhat informally in Jerry Mander's "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" as well as other texts. George Lucas became concerned about "light through" when he saw what happened to the travelling matte animations in his Star Wars films when they were "scanned" to video for broadcast. What was hidden by projection was clearly visible by TV. This has strong implications for the aesthetics of film in all areas under the control of the filmmakers. Some in the discussion have obliquely addressed the concern for the reduced impact of the viewing experience with respect to the temporal aspects of films. A motion picture is meant to be experienced as a continuous projection uninterrupted and with seamless reel changes. For analysis of film content this is problematic as it requires repeated viewings in order to retain the elements being examined. With videotape the freeze, replay, and scanning through sections are where the editorial control of the filmmaker is passed on to the viewer and the effect of this on the viewer has been to trivialize the importance of the editorial decisions being made by the storytellers. Pekinpah's (sp?) use of slow motion to emphasize the moment of death has been a subject of solemn debate in film study since I was young. Would a slow motion analysis of any battle scene in Star Wars give proper emphasis to the original intent of the scenes or would it completely trivialize what is going on there? Because books are an individualized linear experience operating as a visualizing exercise for the mind they cannot compare adequately to the collective viewing experience of a motion picture. In the selective terms of comparing content they can find a shared set of metaphors which I believe is the essence of the "text" discussion. But, I dare to emphasize, we reduce the meaning of the film experience by analyzing it in strictly content terms as well as by translating the images into another medium. Teachers of film study must be aware of these aspects of media effects in order to instill the meaning of film in their classes. I cannot recall who originated the phrase "Talking about dance is like singing about architecture", but it is instructive to remember this when choosing which presentation environment to use for specific aspects of film study. We must be sure that we are not "talking about dance". [log in to unmask] TV Producer Faculty of Education University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PS. Upon re-reading I change my mind about simply sending this to you and have decided to ship it to Screen-L as well. ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]