From: Tony Williams
English
SIUC
 The "pleasure" aspect raised by Mike represents another interesting direction
this debate may take. Usually, arguments about the theatre experience in
watching films involve aesthetic judgements about subjects seated in a
darkened auditorium dominated by images on a huge screen. This particular
approach has several connections with  psychoanalytic issues of spectator-
ship we are all familiar with.
  However, in view of alternative cognitive and analytic approaches raised
by David Bordwell and Joseph Anderson (in a book soon to be published by SIU
Press), would not interrogative approaches aided by laser and video (freeze/
stop frame ect) be also applicable to the film experience? If spectatorship is
seen in this light (as opposed to the aesthetic and pleasurable realms) then
the differences between film and video do not appear to be so large.
  Finally, concerning the topic raised before about the difference between
viewing a painting in an art gallery and seeing a reproduction in a book, it
is often the case that the lighting used for reproduction may give a better
impression of the original than seeing it in an art gallery situation. This
arose during a conversation when visiting the National Gallery in London. I
feel that with the development of technology and the present state of 16mm
reproduction, it is becoming really difficult to adhere to the film vs. laser/v
video distinction. It's similar to the old high vs.low/popular debate.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]