What is film?

i've been thinking for a while about what makes film different from other mediums (see my threads on comic books and the limitations of film) and i'll be interested to see some more thoughts along those lines.

time, it seems to me, is a key factor. a movie can control how long you look at something.

It's all about emotions and ideas placed upon emulsion, usually with accompanying sound.

ryan--i think the concept of time is huge in the medium of film. could you elaborate a bit more on how you think time relates to film?

girolamo--do you think sound is a necessary element? what are acceptable ways (or any ways) of "placeing emotions and ideas" upon emulsion. also, does film have to be "film" (i.e. celluloid and emulsion)? what role does video play?

I'll just steal from Poppa Jean-Luc:

A girl + A gun

Seriously though -- I couldn't even begin to answer that here.

Your questions are very good though.

I think one thing that is critical in what film means to me is something that is sadly deteriorating -- film as a collective experience. Unlike books, or art -- which are more personal experiences, film places you in a large, darkened space, with rows upon rows of strangers, all experiencing the same thing, yet each having a unique experience.

When I was a kid (this was just before the home-video revolution) my dad would often take me to many of NYC's revival theaters to watch the classics. The experience of seeing films like Singing in the Rain, Some Like it Hot with a sold-out crowd was (as trite as it may sound) magical. That sensation has not waned for me. As recently as last year, the experience of seeing Irreversible with a crowd of people was definitely part of the experience. Subsequent viewings on video have not had the same impact, and it's not for knowing the story.

How many of us (read: all) say "Ah...I'll catch in on video" -- we do it all the time. Sure -- we don't all have the time or the $$$ to see every film in the theater, but more often than not we are robbing ourselves of part of the experience.

Film was envisioned as a collective event. Even films that I'd seen countless times took on new meaning in a group setting.

I know this may not be exactly what Jay was looking for, but I’m just getting started.

Gotta go...boss is coming. . .

BabyBuddha--

Great topic with the idea of film as "collective event". Although I don't know whether your statement "film was envisioned as a collective event" is entirely true (I'm thinking of the first cinema machines, "magic laterns" and kinetoscopes, etc., which required either a solitary viewer or a very small audience) it is an important concept and one that differs greatly from the presentation of other arts.

it's also a troublesome one in my eyes in that large audiences contribute to phenomena such as band-wagon effects, crowd-induced behavior, etc. (which are not at all bad things, per se, but may take away from the individual's own personal perspective of the viewing).

One of the very few things that Andy Warhol and Stan Brakhage had in common was a desire to destroy the "collective experience" of filmmaking. Warhol devised theaters with seperate "viewing booths" (with dividers, like bathroom stalls or a peep show) that would keep the audience from seeing (hearing?) each other's emotions/expressions/etc. brakhage created super8 prints of his films in the hope that viewers would watch them at home, in the dark, completely alone. For filmmakers like these, the phenomenon of home video would probably be a fascinating one (although brakhage is not keen on video projection of films--yet he approved the criterion dvd's....strange).

as a filmmaker, i personally am more interested in the brakhage/warhol position, but i'm also fascinated by the ramifications of the mass viewing experience, in both its good and bad respects, and i would definitely love to hear more discussion on how others view it. Does watching a film on video "rob someone of part of the experience" of viewing, or does it simply provide a different experience that is just as meaningful?

oh, and as an aside, i know i've had lengthy sessions of agreement/disagreement with everyone who has posted thus far, but they've been my favorite posts. just want to let everyone know that although we may differ on some things, i respect your ideas and appreciate the posts. you guys really know your stuff & it's been fun to volley the ol' philosophical tennis ball across the court with you guys.

just spreadin' the love...now lets get back to arguing :)

Ah......there you go -- complicatin' matters for me. Sigh.

I was fortunate enough to have film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum teaching at my university. I took virtually all of his courses, and the one in which I learned the most was his class on avant-garde cinema. He told me about the early days of the Anthology Film Archives where they had partitions between the seats. While I completely understand what Warhol and Brakhage had in mind, I don't know if I agree with it. Sure, these were the pioneer days of true "indie" cinema and I can see their desire for something radically different, i.e., not Hollywood at all.

I've been to loads of Brakhage, Kuchar, Mekas, Smith, Deren et. al. screenings at the 'new' Anthology, and I would still argue that the experiences were greater with the audience than had I watched these alone.

Cronenberg tells a story on the commentary track for Spider about an one of the earliest film screenings -- the famous film of the train pulling into the station. He describes how people were leaping to their feet, worried that the train was actually going to hit them. Talk about power, huh?

John Waters, in one of his books, talks about various gimmicks that were employed in the 60's for B-pictures -- things like the tingler, the chicken line, etc. that all added yet again to the group experience thing.

I wrote a paper once on people's reaction to Psycho when it was first released in the theaters. People describe the amazing tension that filled the theater, the clutched arms, sweaty palms, etc.

This, for me, is essential to the film experience.

But let me toss a few more things in the mix -- what I expect from a film now is to see something new, or at least presented in a new way. I don't want formula or predictability. I want imagination more than all -- even if the film is rooted in truth. I need to get a sense that the director is truly in the work. I don't want the director at arm's length constructing images or employing gimmicks that he/she thinks might make a great looking film. More often than not, when I think a film is a piece of shit, I find that the director has VERY little to say when pressed. I've heard Catherine Breillat speak on three occasions for three different films and she has virtually nothing to say about the works. Stock standard answers. She's out to shock, and not much more. Compare that to, let's say, Claire Denis, who can (and does) go into great detail about the most minor points of her films. It shows in the finished product.

This, too, is part of what film is to me.

Will add more later. . .

i won't deny that seeing, say, a brakhage film or a warhol film with a large audience doesn't have an interesting effect, and the whole "shared experience" is a beautiful part of cinema--but it's not what the filmmakers' intended. and while a filmmaker's "intentions" might not mean shit in the long run to the majority of the audience, i do feel that the audience, knowing the director's intentions, should at least understand how their experience might have differed in a solitary context.

i think i'm definitely on the other side of the fence when it comes to film viewing--i'm more of a solitary viewer. i rarely go to theaters, and when i do, it's usually to see a blockbuster film with my friends. but when it comes to films that i want to see for more than entertainment, i usually watch them at home.

i guess my concerns about the collective viewing experience is the domino effect of group emotional response i mentioned earlier, and something that your post reminded me of--the gimmicks necessary to get a shared group reaction/experience. Moving seats, shocking people, thinking a train is coming through the screen, John Waters (whom you mentioned, and whom I'm a big fan of--if you like him, check out Jack Smith & George Kuchar's films {Waters' influenced} and to a lesser effect, Nick Zedd (Water's predecessor) had "Smell-o-Vision" in a movie I can't remember....

I'm just concerned that directors must pander to a large audience in that context, so they resort to not only gimmicks but scripts that lack depth and subtlety, forcing a film to fit a certain amount of screen time, casting well-known actors when a new unknown would be for fitting---etc.

i guess you just have to way the pros and cons of collective experience and decide which work best for you. it's a tough one, and depends a lot on your personality, too, i guess.

of course, with a forum like this, i never feel like i'm watching a movie alone!

1) I agree with the idea of collective experience being more powerful (not for bandwagon effect purposes for me - as those films will always have that kind of pull with any groups regardless of size, format, etc...the blockbusters, mostly), but not really because of collective as collective as much as what it leads to.

For example, today I watched Long Twilight (?) at the NFT. There were only maybe 30 or so people there, and no one really had any noticable perceptive effect on me, aside from hearing a few coughs and sneezes periodically. However, the fact that not everyone can screen a 35mm print, much less of a film like that, necessitated the building and usage of a public theater, which is used to then bring together people to see said thing on 35mm. What this forces upon the audience is a screening time, a screening place, and the inability to stop the film at any given moment during the show - if you have to use the restroom, exit to take a phone call, or just plain fall asleep, the movie is still going to move on, with or without you. This, therefore, means that you are more conscious of the film in the sense that you can't just pause it as conveniences go.

Oh, and you paid for a probably decently expensive ticket, too. And that is an important distinction - watching a film start to finish w/o the impinging of the outside world does change things. It's about the imposition of an entire experience within the realm of the senses, to the exclusion (mostly) of consciousness that this is a film being watched in a theater. This is my true definition of suspension of disbelief, regardless of what anyone else may say the phrase really means - this is what I mean by it.

When you can pause or stop a film to answer the phone, go out for dinner, or go to sleep, it's a very different and fractious experience, and I find that I tend to have less likelihood to love a film that I've had to break apart into little pieces of viewing.

2) So the obvious question after this is - why bother to go to all the effort to create a 35mm print master of a film, when it just makes the need for all this arrangement just to get someone to view it? To which all I can say is that, on quality, tone, and emotional response to these factors, no one has ever had a coherent argument pro video con film. The video response has always been one of fiscal convenience, immediacy, intermediate usage, and preservation. I have a hard time believing that video will ever be able to supplant film as per MOVIES, because its entire existence in this struggle has been trying to emulate a format that it simply can't physically replicate, regardless of how close it may approach. Video will have to be (and has been) the midwife of a new form of art, a new medium that can do things film will never be able to do no matter how hard FILM ever would try to emulate it.

Yes, video formats are cheaper, but as film stock itself has always been a relatively minimal cost for any sizable production, I don't see it being a significant cost-saver at the high-end. That, and the equipment is more expensive to purchase and almost prohibitively expensive to repair - you might as well buy a new camera. In this respect, mechanical instruments usually hold the trump cards. And I'm not convinced that in the long run, with obsolescence and higher digital standards, video will indeed be cheaper to maintain.

Video's immediacy is troubling to burgeoning cinematographers, because it means that unlike film, where the video tap is a rough approximation of what the film may look like, at least in framing and lens optics, the video image itself is what the master is. This makes the craftsmanship of the DP more compromised by the producer, executive, or whoever else making uninformed suggestions or strongarming to accomplish things that may actually not be wise or up to the true vision of the material without sufficient secondary knowledge. If this sounds elitist, I'm sorry, but...

Excerpted from Oliver Stapleton's site (www.cineman.co.uk):
So long as there is Film in the camera, the DP has a job. Once the film is a chip, the DP becomes a Videoperson, because his/her power over the image is lost.

...

The Photographic Process is at the heart of Cinema, and it is this process that may be about to change, and with this change Cinema is about to turn into a different medium from the one that has existed for the last Hundred Years. This is because the "fix it afterwards" mentality is invading the filming process because of Digital Post Production. When you transfer a photo of your sister on to the body of a donkey on your home PC, you are performing a manipulation that only 5 years ago was only able to be executed by a skilled artist/photofinisher. Computers have put an end to this skill: the skill is transferred to the programmer and computer technician. When George Lucas makes Star Wars Prequel 6, he probably won't bother to go to any location as he will be able to make the whole movie right there on Skywalker Ranch. He'll pay a license fee to the actor, haul them in for a couple of days to do a computer model of their face and body and that's that. Actor goes home. This process will only exist at the expensive end of cinema for the next few years, but after that the technology will become cheaper and cheaper to the "crossover" point where it will be cheaper to make a film on a computer, than go on Location. At this point "Real Cinema" will only apply to films made on location, and "Real Cinema" will be a minority thing for aficionados. The main reason, apart for economics, that this will come about, is that it gives the Hollywood Moguls more control over their films, as they will be made right there in the office, and subject to endless Previews, meetings, marketing and all the committee forces that are the antithesis of creative film making. Studio Executives right now are sidelined by the technical and logistical nature of filmmaking. When they visit the set, they are the outsiders - only granted access to the rushes the day after. Once the on-set process is digital, or has disappeared altogether, then the Executive will assume more powers and have more influence. The non-filmmakers will become the filmmakers. Scary. Why is this? Because the FilmMaking Process right now is so technical in nature that it takes years of training and experience for Directors, Cinematographers and Editors to learn their craft. But once the process is on a computer then the following catastrophes are " No Problem".

1. Actor wears wrong clothes and no one notices.
    Solution: Change in Post.

2. Actor eyeline is wrong - "Doesn't match".
     Solution: Change in Post.

3. Single is needed but only 2 shot available.
    Solution: Cut singles out of two shot, re-orientate in 3D to Singles, and cross cut.

4. Shot is "Too Dark" or "Too Light" or "Not Contrasty Enough" or "Not Warm enough" etc etc.
    Solution: Change in Post.

This list could go on and on, and cover about every available catastrophe that occurs during current filmmaking. The real problem is that the people who do the "Change in Post" scenario are Editors who not only work alongside the Directors, but, more scarily, are employed by and subject to the whims of the Producers. Some Producers have no taste at all when it comes to the Film Process, and are hopelessly swayed by Public Opinion and the Marketplace. If you'd come up with $50 Million, you might be interested in a result too. For every producer who has an Artistic Soul, there are 100 who don't.

At the moment, the only constraint on doing the things outlined above, are Cost and Quality. To their credit, most Producers are very concerned with quality and want their film to Look Fabulous. At the moment, they turn to the Cinematographer to achieve this as the Timing Process at the Laboratory is quite technical and most Producers do not have the confidence or expertise to go into the Lab and tell them what to do. But within the next 10 to 20 years, the Labs may close and the Timing Process may take place within the PostProduction Computer and I suspect the Cinematographer will not be invited. This is because he or she will not be the hallowed figure that we are now, but mere technicians who turn up with the digital camera and say "What's next Guv?" The only way to prevent this situation from occurring is to get the Cinematographers Right over the Image enshrined in our Contracts. But this will be a tough fight to win, as the Producers have made sure for years that your work is bought outright at the time of shooting, with the Cinematographer having no right or control over what happens to it after that. In practice, the majority of Producers still seek the advice of the Cinematographer when it comes to printing for the reasons outlined above - but....

Back to what I was saying...the intermediate convenience of video in being able to do stuff like non-linear editing and creating DVDs and all that is nice...but, ultimately not quite as important, I think. It is both cheaper and artistically easier this way, and that is something that probably is important to the way that film works. But, having edited film footage on video and seen the resulting footage after the negative cut, shown on the big screen, they DO look different. Just a fact. Again, goes back to video properties, stuff like "superwhite/superblack", frame rates, scan rates, electronic instead of pure optical light being projected....yadda yadda yadda...

Where this is fascinating is again in the realm of relative costs. Because when doing non-linear editing, usually the quality of the video doesn't need to be comparitively high to get the job done...assuming back to film. But there is no good reason why video standards will not continue to accelerate, leading us back to the old-format problem, which may lead to higher costs for video. The problem with video is that as the technology is not analog, the digital sensitivity can always be increased, but usually (always?) not without substantial increases in data size, storage medium, or whole equipment/technology. And that is ultimately the largest problem; you can improve 35mm quality by improving the emulsion, or creating better projectors, or whatnot, but the entire system doesn't usually need to be upgraded from the bottom up for this to happen.

Also, the intermediate would create the ability to transmit data files to theaters to digitally project. But again, theater owners are antithetical (though perhaps not immune) to the demand and costs of doing this upgrade. Ultimately, the problem comes when distribution of movies online becomes a demand, because again, there will be the piracy problem, which certainly was not a big deal when things were done via professional analog standards.

And finally, the preservation/archiving aspect therefore is suspect due to this whole format problem, as well. While this is a noble and important thing that has helped save or resurrect many classics, the fundaments of all this rely upon restruck internegatives from restorations. Although this will still need digital retouching for minor work, I'd be horrified if no film masters were ever struck again for new restorations.

3) No, I don't think sound (set sound vs. all sound? well whatever) is any more or less necessary than actors, locations, montage, color, color timing, set design, or any other method or tool used by film in order to create and convey ideas and emotions within the audience itself. Whether or not these emotions or ideas are what were intended is irrelevant, as you might say that the greatness of a film could (and possibly is) only ultimately judged on this property.

But that is something that occurs only with and within each member of an audience, and although viewing it with other viewers may in certain ways stifle or enhance this experience, just as discussing it with other viewers afterwards will, the act of engagement that occurs in the isolation of the mind during and immediately after viewing is to me the primary sine non qua of the art, and this is precisely related not only the idea of temporality, but the idea of images in continuous motion within a space and time that are suggested, not real (although they may parallel the real constraints - ie a film that takes place within the 2D of a screen or a film that takes place in 'realtime').

So, after all that, I stand by my original assertion in every word.

girolamo--

as a video artist (primarily but not exclusively), i've got some major rebuttals to the above (especially the "do it in post" stuff). but i'll address them soon when i have a bit more time.

I look forward to it. I need some sleep first, though, so no rush.

Ok, I've decided I'm never going to have the time to address that huge post by Girolamo all at once, so I'm going to break it down.

#1--On the Collective Viewing Experience

You said that watching a film in a theater makes you more conscious of the film because you can't pause it. I think it's the opposite. A continuous viewing experience sucks you into the world created by the film & makes you increasingly passive to the artwork's effect on you. Maybe the uncomfortable seats will get to you after a while, but that's about it.

Whereas, having completely control over the film from home (i.e. bathroom breaks, etc.) would seemingly cause the viewer to have a GREATER consciousness of the film, since they are always aware of their ability to control it, either via volume, color/brightness controls, pause button, etc. I would argue our ability to enact our will upon an image would give us greater awareness to it.

I also don't think the ability to pause a film should necessarily be part of the argument for collective experience, because that's a completely arbitrary thing. When I sit down to watch a film at home, I adjust all controls before starting and very rarely do i ever pause it. While the ability to do so might play some small psychological role in experience of a film, I think it's arbitrary enough to not be a major factor.

I think I've already outlined my stance on the benefits of solitary viewing, so I won't delve into it here unless requested.

On to the biggie, numero deux....

I'm on jay blanchard's side on point one, I suppose. If I had seen Irréversible in a theater with people all around me alternately dry-heaving or gore-hound rubber-necking the opening murder ("wow! check dat shit out!"), it probably would've taken me right out of the movie from that point on. Actually, this is why I think so many make the mistaken judgement that once the murder and rape scenes are over there's nothing left to watch. (i.e. probably because they were waiting for the next freakshow scene to turn around and look at the reactions of the people around them)

cool, someone agrees with me for a change! (well, other than BabyBuddha, who's got my back the majority of the time--thanks pal).

however, just wanted to clarify that my opinion on the solitary vs. collective viewing experience is just my own, and i think the choice between one or the other depends on a lot of factors, the first being your feelings about crowds/groups in general (i hate crowded places--shopping malls, parties, etc. and that might be a large part of my choice for solitary film viewing).

also, as most of you already know, my tastes in film often (though not always) run the way of avant-garde, and i think most (yet not all) people who are into experimental or avant-garde cinema prefer individual viewing.

i think it would be kind of pointless to argue that one is better than the other in this instance. it seems that they are completely different ways to experience a film, each with its pros and cons, and mainly dependent on personal taste.

Film is entertainment.

"the experience of seeing Irreversible with a crowd of people was definitely part of the experience. Subsequent viewings on video have not had the same impact".

That's because the DVD doesn't contain the subsonic tone used by police to induce nausea is rioters. The theatrical prints did. ; /

Was that really used, PVC? I did feel physically sick, but I thought it was simply from the tension.

on time: i started watching my dvd of satantango the other day, not to really watch it, just to get an idea of what it was like. well i got kinda sucked in through the first three shots or so (that's about 20 minutes!)

anyway, one of the shots in particular was interesting. it was the second one i think: a window in a kitchen. for the first few minutes, i was thinking it was a pretty dull shot, and i couldnt really figure out the point, and it wasnt that intersesting to look at. eventually i noticed the curtain was moving, and since there was nothing else to look at i began to focus on that curtain and its swaying. i thought it was kind of beautiful. after a few more minutes i noticed the sun was coming up! (this hit me like a major revelation--it was extraordinary)

i think the power and beauty of this shot is located almost entirely in the length of time it is presented. the only other art form that i think gets at this is some forms of ambient music.

JesusMaryChain--see the film rockism post if you want to have that idea totally shot down.

is there a ritualistic component to film watching? (esp narrative films--going to the theater, starting up the VCR/DVD player) i wonder if this is connected to older rituals regarding storytelling? (also funny how the novel and non-dramatic poetry seem to not fit into this tradition at all! anomalies?)

Film is something that's forming on my teeth right now. I have to brush more often!

'see the film rockism post if you want to have that idea totally shot down'

Nah man. What's your definition of 'entertainment?' Are you entertained by learning? Sleeping? Listening? Watching? Yelling?

Hence, Film is entertainment or, to be crude, whatever you feel like.

As a result, it's essentially undefinable within the classification of 'entertainment.' You might then query the supposition by a great many critics/filmgoers that 'Psycho' or 'Chinatown' are terrific films. This is on account of certain creative and technical elements widely accepted as qualites that make up a terrifc film - strong character, plot, sountrack, etc. However, 'Film' is not these things. 'Entertainment' is. We're ENTERTAINED by Norman Bates and his duel personality. We're frightened by the notion that such lunacy exists. We are frightened. What is fright when applied to cinema? Entertainment.

Film is entertainment. Entertainment is emotion. Emotion is however you feel.

So, I suppose, one could make the conclusion that Film is Individual Feeling - or Entertainment.

Entertainment implies passivity. I think you're definition is self-servingly broad.

excuse me, "your".

En-ter-tain-ment:

1. The act of entertaining.
2. The art or field of entertaining.
3. Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.

'Pleases' could constitute an infinite number of possibilites.