--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is the form of a duration around 90 > > minutes with three acts that does define the cinematic form. > > This is so wrong it's not funny. > > The length criterion (not to mention the absurd narrative-biased three > act structure criterion) completely disregards almost the entire > avant-garde movement, many films of which are decidedly more cinematic > than the narrative films you see to think define cinema (see Brakhage, > Breer, Mekas, Deren, VanDerBeek, Fischinger, Richter, and so on). It > also disregards masterpieces like 'Les Vampires' (399 min), Tarr's > 'Sátántangó' (450 min), Lanzmann's 'Shoah' (544 min), and Rivette's > 'Out 1' (729 min). I can assure you that these are among the most > cinematic films of all time. > > The three act structure criterion doesn't just disregard films from > the avant-garde, either, but narrative films with one act (short > films), two acts ('Sleuth'), four ('Shoah'), more ('Playtime'), and so > on, as well. Again, all incredibly cinematic films. > > Your definition of cinematic form seems to me to speak only of your > very limited understanding of everything that cinema is and can be. > > It's like saying that literature is defined by novels of approximately > four hundred pages in length, as opposed to by words, any number of > them, arranged to make meaning, or to create aesthetic effect, no > more, no less. > > It's like saying that music is defined by four quarter time > compositions that run for approximately three or four minutes and have > lyrics, often which rhyme, as opposed to by sounds, arranged by tone, > timbre, quality, and so on, for any length of time, again for some > sort of aesthetic effect, pleasurable or intentionally otherwise. > > It's like saying that visual art is defined by one type of paint, on > canvas, hung on a wall somewhere in France, as opposed to by shapes, > colours, textures, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. > > You see where I'm going. > > Cinema is not defined--not in any way, shape or form--by films with > ninety minute running times and three act (narrative) structures. > > It is defined by moving images (occasionally accompanied by sounds) > existing (they don't even have to be arranged) in time. Cinema is > time-based images.
Well, there's a definition of cinema, I would say too loosely defined. But a start. I'm not proposing a restrictive defintion of videoblogging. Just that it is more useful to have a workable definition than none. -- Enric > > This post has nothing to do with videoblogging (it could, but I'm > tired and want to go to bed), but I'll stand up for cinema until my > bloody, no doubt premature death. All I can say is that if our > definitions of videoblogging are as restrictive and reductive as this > definition of cinema, then we're simply not the right people to be > developing it--in fact, I'd argue that we'd be hindering it far more > than we'd be helping it. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season! http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/