Sunday, May 09, 2010
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Complicating National Identity: Lynching Memorial in Duluth, Minnesota
January 31, 2004
Nearly eighty-four years ago, in a small but rapidly growing industrial town in the northeast corner of Minnesota, three black men were lynched by a mob of 10,000 angry white people, their revenge for an alleged rape of a white woman. Although lynching was more typical of the South, it also occurred in the North. From 1889 to 1918, 3,224 people were lynched nationwide, of which 79 percent were black and 219 of them took place in the North. But for Minnesota and Duluth, this was the first time the victims were black. In October of 2003, Duluth took the unprecedented step of dedicating a memorial to the three lynching victims: Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson, and Isaac McGhie.
In cemeteries, small roadside plaques and designation markers, memorials to lynching have existed in the American landscape. Both in scale and site however, the Duluth memorial is an exception to the norm. Designed by Artists Carla Stetson and Anthony Porter, the memorial incorporates the writings of Martin Luther King Jr., Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, and others. The main wall holds 10-foot bronze relief statues of Clayton, Jackson and McGhie. (Fig.1) Perhaps what is most unique about this memorial is its location. At the very heart of the downtown plaza, the memorial is sure to been seen by all the townspeople. “The memorial’s visibility adds to it’s strength,” Heidi Bakk-Hansen, a reporter, whose grassroots efforts along with others, helped spur the emergence of the memorial. “This is a place that people cannot avoid.” According to Kenneth E. Foote in Shadowed Ground, the sanctification that has occurred in the Duluth memorial is rare because the history is accompanied by a shameful story of violence and tragedy without the attributes of heroic virtue.
On June 14th of 1920, the John Robinson Circus came to town. A nineteen-year-old white girl, Irene Tusken, and her eighteen-year-old friend James Sullivan, went to the festivities that evening. Duluth Police Chief John Murphy received a call the next morning from Sullivan’s father, accusing six black circus workers of raping Tusken at gunpoint. The accusation lacked any evidence; an examination of Tusken that morning by her family’s physician, showed no physical signs of rape or assault. The police arrested six black men from the circus and held them in the Duluth city jail. News of the incident spread quickly, an enormous crowd estimated at 10,000 gathered and attacked the jail. They were met with little resistance, and the police were ordered not to hold back the crowd. They ripped through the jail cells, dragging the six prisoners into the street.
There was a sham of a trial in front of the jail, where three of the prisoners were let go and the others declared guilty. The condemned, Clayton, Jackson, and McGhie, were then dragged one block to a light pole on the corner of Second Avenue and First Street. They were beaten one by one and then lynched. The crowd gathered to take pictures smiling jubilantly with the corpses, pictures that were eventually made into postcards. (Fig.2)
Although lynchings weren’t typical of Duluth, conditions for blacks there in 1920 emulated the rest of the country. Most restaurants wouldn’t serve black patrons, movies and buses were segregated and blacks laborers were paid far less then their white counterparts. In regards to race relations, the country was in a volatile situation. As blacks migrated north in large numbers looking for work. Many Blacks accepted lower wages and strikebreaking positions and whites grew increasingly threatened. Violence, discrimination, and conflict plagued both North and South. But when the news hit the nation about the lynching in Duluth, many were shocked and outraged. Newspapers such as the New York Times and Chicago Evening Post ran first page articles condemning the lynching, and an article in the Minneapolis Journal accused the lynch mob of putting “an effaceable stain on the name of Minnesota,” stating, “The sudden flaming up of racial passion, which is the reproach of the South, may also occur, as we now learn in the bitterness of humiliation in Minnesota.”
But others weren’t sympathetic to 19 and 20 year old lynching victims. The Mankato Daily Free Press stated, “Mad dogs are shot dead without ceremony. Beasts in human shape are entitled to but scant consideration. The law gives them by far too much of an advantage.” A grand jury investigation was convened on June 17th, but identifying the mob leaders and killers proved difficult. Over the next several weeks, they issued thirty-seven indictments for white men being in the mob and twelve for murder in the first degree. Out of these, eight whites had their day in court, with four acquitted and one trial resulting in a hung jury. Three whites were convicted for rioting, serving less than 15 months in prison. No one was convicted for the murder of Clayton, Jackson, and McGhie.
Like most sites of lynching in the American landscape, a memorial didn’t exist in a physical form. The site of the lynching was spelling out “values society does not wish to remember.” The hangings occurred in a central and valuable location, downtown Duluth, and because of this, it was cleaned up and rectified. At the time of the lynching, the stigma of violence toward blacks isn’t what is now, perhaps nullifying a sense of shame that usually shapes a course towards obliteration in which the “site is not returned to use but more commonly removed from use.”
It would not have been possible to memorialize the lynching victims back in 1920’s. Although there was conflicting opinions about the use of lynching and the fairness of the trial the three men faced, no one would have dared to sanctify the dead men. Tragically, the men were buried without marked graves until 1991, when Craig Grau, after reading 1979 publication of Michael Fedo's book The Lynchings in Duluth, urged his Lutheran church and the local chapter of NAACP to raise funds for marking the graves. Now the graves states their names, death dates and an inscription that reads, “Deterred but not Defeated.'” (Fig. 3 and 4) Since the publication of the book and the dedication of the marked graves, interest from the locals has steadily climbed.
Like other sites of tragedy in American history that went through the rectification process, not all lessons and reflections were lost immediately after the incident. The horror did spur some citizens of Duluth to band together, start their own chapter of NAACP and lobby for an anti-lynching bill, which was signed into law on April 21, 1921. But to address the public landscape, the nation’s identity in relation to racism had to change. In Shadowed Ground, Foote notes:
Sanctification, designation, rectification, and obliteration are not necessarily final. Minor adjustments are common, and major changes not unusual, sometimes long after an event...The motive for change is retrospective interpretation.
America’s social fabric has changed since the 1920’s. Fedo’s publication and yearly candlelight vigils since the dedication of the marked graves has galvanized Duluth’s community to began a grassroots campaign to erect a memorial fitting of the suffering of the deceased and the lessons learned. A committee was formed to fundraise and get out the message, and seemingly the entire town pitched in. They raised $270, 000 in a year for a memorial which commemorates a painful reminder of a dark time in Duluth’s past. “Yes, it happened in Duluth. No, we're not proud of it. But we're going to learn from it” stated Duluth Mayor Gary Doty at the dedication ceremony.
Duluth erected a memorial that points to a shameful tragedy in her history, but the community building that has occurred because of it gives them great pride. People of every race, age and economic status pitched in, holding marches, raffles and dances to raise funds and awareness. Their memorial is a symbol of how far they have come. By encouraging dialogue and coming to terms with the past, perhaps the citizens of Duluth can finally heal and move forward to their future.
6. Marilyn Ziebarth, “Judge Lynch in Minnesota,” Minnesota History 55, no. 2 (Summer 1996): 72.
http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/10/10_julinc_lynchingdedicati/
http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/10/10_julinc_lynchingdedicati/
Shadowed ground, 293,294
http://collections.mnhs.org/duluthlynchings/index.htm
http://collections.mnhs.org/duluthlynchings/index.htm
http://collections.mnhs.org/duluthlynchings/index.htm
“The Duluth Disgrace,” Minneapolis Journal, 17 June 1920, p. 18.
“The Duluth Tragedy,” Mankato Daily Free Press, 17 June 1920, p. 6.
http://collections.mnhs.org/duluthlynchings/index.htm
shadowed ground. 33.
ibid, p.24.
http://news.mpr.org/projects/2001/06/lynching/page4.shtml , by Chris Julin June 2001
http://collections.mnhs.org/duluthlynchings/index.htm
Shadowed ground, 214.
http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/10/10_julinc_lynchingdedicati/
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Algerian-French artist Zineb Sedira introduced her video suite, “Mother Tongue 2002” to the audience attending her lecture at The University of Colorado at Boulder by stating, “Don’t worry if you don’t understand the French and Arabic in the project. It is the point and you’ll see why.” The American audience nervously shifted in their seats. As Americans, we are only too aware that we are one of few countries that cannot speak multiple languages. When traveling abroad, we rely on the fact that English is widely spoken around the world. Being forced to watch films that have subtitles is torture for us; watching foreign language films without subtitles is unimaginable.
So to be forced to watch a video consisting of 15 minutes of a dialogue between two women, barren of any visual aesthetic value, offering no clues to what the they are speaking of, is frustrating for us. Boring. Prior to the screening, Sedira even mentioned that the respective merits of each conversation weren’t t of any significance. So why was she showing it to us?
Sitting amongst the American audience, I found it interesting how the crowd reacted to being subjected to a video work that they had no access to. Some students left. Others used the opportunity to take naps. But for me, having been raised in the Middle East, my experience was different. I was raised speaking Arabic, English and French. Even though it has been years since I have practiced my French, I still understood enough to get the gist of Zineb’s mother tongue. Though I’m only fluent in Classical Arabic, it wasn’t too much of a stretch to understand Zineb's mother, who spoke with the Algerian dialect.
I found Zineb’s comments to the audience to be true, what was being said between the women didn’t seem to be of any importance. In “Mother and I (France)”, Sedira speaks her mother in French about the elder’s experiences as a schoolgirl in Algeria. Her mother replies in Arabic. In “Daughter and I (England),” Sedira’s teenage daughter (who was raised in England), asks her questions in English about her experiences growing up in France. Sedira replies in French. In “Grandmother and Granddaughter (Algeria)” the suite finally makes sense. The teenage girl asks her grandmother questions in English, but the Grandmother, having been raised in Algeria and later migrating to France when Sedira was a child, is unable to understand her granddaughter’s questions. She says as much, in Arabic, but the granddaughter, who understands her mother’s French, but not her grandmother’s Arabic, looks to the camera blankly. The grandmother does the same, presumably at Sedira standing behind the camera, the only person that can bridge the gap between them. Sedira’s family’s generational migration through countries of different languages has severed the communication amongst its’ members.
“Grandmother and Granddaughter (Algeria)” served as a comical moment for the audience that stayed to watch. Laughter rippled through the audience as the Sedira's mother and daughter looked at each other and back at the camera over and over again. For me, nothing could have been further from that response. I found the suite to be tragic and disturbing. I choked back tears imagining my own American born son unable to communicate with my grandmother, who doesn’t speak any English. I felt extremely grateful to my own mother who has always insisted that I speak to her in Arabic, so as not to lose my Arabic language and heritage upon our immigration to the US when I was thirteen. I also felt shame for not being diligent about introducing the Arabic language to my two-year-old son.
When it came to the Q&A part of the lecture, an audience member poignantly asked why the artist hadn’t taught her daughter Arabic. Sedira responded that like the millions of people who live in the Diaspora, she understands her mother’s native language but is unable to carry on conversation, let alone teach it to her daughter. Like many parents who have had to move from their homelands due to post colonial rule, civil wars and economic deprivation, the promise of a new country and their struggle to assimilate and be accepted rose above the necessity of teaching their native culture, language and heritage to their children.
The irony of Zineb’s parents fleeing post-colonial French rule in Algeria to move to France, where Sedira was raised, is not lost on the artist. Understanding that hardship is integral to understanding “Mother Tongue2002”. Immigration is difficult on any family, but to immigrate to a country that doesn’t even respect your sovereignty leaves one in a precarious position. Self-denial and all that it entails was likely a factor in negating any associations she had to her parents’ homeland.
Sedira screened “Mother Tongue 2002” by presenting them one following another. At the gallery exhibition that opened the following week, the work was shown on three plasma screens, stationed side by side and running simultaneously, with each screening one of the three videos. The viewer was to sit on a bench and place headphones on in order to hear the dialogue of a single screen.
I found the gallery exhibition’s presentation to be problematic. Devoid of any instruction of which order to watch the video project, or even to know that all three must be watched in order to grasp the point, most viewers would listen to a few seconds of one video, not comprehending the language and then leave. Sedira’s minimalist approach to the visual aesthetic (all three video’s presented the women’s profiles, shot from the neck up against a blank white wall) and the poor video quality only distanced the viewer from engaging with the work.
Knowing that I am also an Arab, several people approached me at the exhibition to ask what I thought of her video work. None had taken the time to watch all the videos because they didn’t understand that there was link between the projects. The impact of dislocation and displacement had past over them. The meaning of “Mother Tongue 2002” can only be revealed in its’ presentation. The chronological screening of it, no matter how seemingly boring in the beginning, was effective. Gallery spaces are often problematic for video installation where the linear viewing is of essence. Patrons expect to stand in front of a piece for no more than 20 seconds before their attention fades.
Less problematic is a screening room where the viewer will willingly sit and watch, a condition instilled by cinema and TV. If the artist truly wanted to communicate the reality of cultural erosion that the Diaspora provides, she should take in to account the audiences conditional response to presentation. Upon speaking to Sedira about this matter over dinner, she mentioned that the three plasma screens offered more weight to the work, in respect to it being an “art installation” in a gallery, rather then a mere video screening. The power of the art, however, is its ability to convey ideas and the presentation should be used to enhance, not detract, from the meaning. It should be noted that much of the difficulty lies in the pre-visualization of how the work will be exhibited and what meanings will be drawn by the installation of it. Since the Boulder exhibition was the first official screening for “Mother Tongue 2002”, the artist and curator might not have had insight into the problematic reading their installation choices caused.
Focusing on the preferable screening order, Sedira’s video suite effectively demonstrates the damage of dislocation. Her simplistic approach creates a powerful commentary of the destruction colonial rule has infiltrated into the everyday personal world of her family. Its implications are far reaching. The boundaries between family members are no longer determined by physical space, but by the very nature of what keeps us connected as humans, that being communication. The artist said she was interested in boundaries, both real and imagined. Without communication, either between her family members or with her audience, the idea of boundaries, real or imagined, is very apparent. A small fragment of the very real implications of living within the Diaspora, “Mother Tongue 2002” denies its’ audience full access, eloquently demonstrating the meaning of Zineb Sedira’s work.
So to be forced to watch a video consisting of 15 minutes of a dialogue between two women, barren of any visual aesthetic value, offering no clues to what the they are speaking of, is frustrating for us. Boring. Prior to the screening, Sedira even mentioned that the respective merits of each conversation weren’t t of any significance. So why was she showing it to us?
Sitting amongst the American audience, I found it interesting how the crowd reacted to being subjected to a video work that they had no access to. Some students left. Others used the opportunity to take naps. But for me, having been raised in the Middle East, my experience was different. I was raised speaking Arabic, English and French. Even though it has been years since I have practiced my French, I still understood enough to get the gist of Zineb’s mother tongue. Though I’m only fluent in Classical Arabic, it wasn’t too much of a stretch to understand Zineb's mother, who spoke with the Algerian dialect.
I found Zineb’s comments to the audience to be true, what was being said between the women didn’t seem to be of any importance. In “Mother and I (France)”, Sedira speaks her mother in French about the elder’s experiences as a schoolgirl in Algeria. Her mother replies in Arabic. In “Daughter and I (England),” Sedira’s teenage daughter (who was raised in England), asks her questions in English about her experiences growing up in France. Sedira replies in French. In “Grandmother and Granddaughter (Algeria)” the suite finally makes sense. The teenage girl asks her grandmother questions in English, but the Grandmother, having been raised in Algeria and later migrating to France when Sedira was a child, is unable to understand her granddaughter’s questions. She says as much, in Arabic, but the granddaughter, who understands her mother’s French, but not her grandmother’s Arabic, looks to the camera blankly. The grandmother does the same, presumably at Sedira standing behind the camera, the only person that can bridge the gap between them. Sedira’s family’s generational migration through countries of different languages has severed the communication amongst its’ members.
“Grandmother and Granddaughter (Algeria)” served as a comical moment for the audience that stayed to watch. Laughter rippled through the audience as the Sedira's mother and daughter looked at each other and back at the camera over and over again. For me, nothing could have been further from that response. I found the suite to be tragic and disturbing. I choked back tears imagining my own American born son unable to communicate with my grandmother, who doesn’t speak any English. I felt extremely grateful to my own mother who has always insisted that I speak to her in Arabic, so as not to lose my Arabic language and heritage upon our immigration to the US when I was thirteen. I also felt shame for not being diligent about introducing the Arabic language to my two-year-old son.
When it came to the Q&A part of the lecture, an audience member poignantly asked why the artist hadn’t taught her daughter Arabic. Sedira responded that like the millions of people who live in the Diaspora, she understands her mother’s native language but is unable to carry on conversation, let alone teach it to her daughter. Like many parents who have had to move from their homelands due to post colonial rule, civil wars and economic deprivation, the promise of a new country and their struggle to assimilate and be accepted rose above the necessity of teaching their native culture, language and heritage to their children.
The irony of Zineb’s parents fleeing post-colonial French rule in Algeria to move to France, where Sedira was raised, is not lost on the artist. Understanding that hardship is integral to understanding “Mother Tongue2002”. Immigration is difficult on any family, but to immigrate to a country that doesn’t even respect your sovereignty leaves one in a precarious position. Self-denial and all that it entails was likely a factor in negating any associations she had to her parents’ homeland.
Sedira screened “Mother Tongue 2002” by presenting them one following another. At the gallery exhibition that opened the following week, the work was shown on three plasma screens, stationed side by side and running simultaneously, with each screening one of the three videos. The viewer was to sit on a bench and place headphones on in order to hear the dialogue of a single screen.
I found the gallery exhibition’s presentation to be problematic. Devoid of any instruction of which order to watch the video project, or even to know that all three must be watched in order to grasp the point, most viewers would listen to a few seconds of one video, not comprehending the language and then leave. Sedira’s minimalist approach to the visual aesthetic (all three video’s presented the women’s profiles, shot from the neck up against a blank white wall) and the poor video quality only distanced the viewer from engaging with the work.
Knowing that I am also an Arab, several people approached me at the exhibition to ask what I thought of her video work. None had taken the time to watch all the videos because they didn’t understand that there was link between the projects. The impact of dislocation and displacement had past over them. The meaning of “Mother Tongue 2002” can only be revealed in its’ presentation. The chronological screening of it, no matter how seemingly boring in the beginning, was effective. Gallery spaces are often problematic for video installation where the linear viewing is of essence. Patrons expect to stand in front of a piece for no more than 20 seconds before their attention fades.
Less problematic is a screening room where the viewer will willingly sit and watch, a condition instilled by cinema and TV. If the artist truly wanted to communicate the reality of cultural erosion that the Diaspora provides, she should take in to account the audiences conditional response to presentation. Upon speaking to Sedira about this matter over dinner, she mentioned that the three plasma screens offered more weight to the work, in respect to it being an “art installation” in a gallery, rather then a mere video screening. The power of the art, however, is its ability to convey ideas and the presentation should be used to enhance, not detract, from the meaning. It should be noted that much of the difficulty lies in the pre-visualization of how the work will be exhibited and what meanings will be drawn by the installation of it. Since the Boulder exhibition was the first official screening for “Mother Tongue 2002”, the artist and curator might not have had insight into the problematic reading their installation choices caused.
Focusing on the preferable screening order, Sedira’s video suite effectively demonstrates the damage of dislocation. Her simplistic approach creates a powerful commentary of the destruction colonial rule has infiltrated into the everyday personal world of her family. Its implications are far reaching. The boundaries between family members are no longer determined by physical space, but by the very nature of what keeps us connected as humans, that being communication. The artist said she was interested in boundaries, both real and imagined. Without communication, either between her family members or with her audience, the idea of boundaries, real or imagined, is very apparent. A small fragment of the very real implications of living within the Diaspora, “Mother Tongue 2002” denies its’ audience full access, eloquently demonstrating the meaning of Zineb Sedira’s work.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
Interview with Filmmaker, Usama Alshaibi
>Q: Please give us an approximation of how many pieces you have shot in 35mm?
16mm film? How many pieces shot on digital?
I have shot 8 movies on DV and 7 movies on 16mm film and 3 movies that use both 16mm & DV.
>Q: Of these "films", are any online so that the readers/students can view
and possibly refer to for further understanding of your examples/arguments?
If so, please provide URLS)
http://www.dancehabibi.com
>Q: At this moment, do you prefer shooting film or digital and why?
I have no prefrence. The shooting medium will effect the execution and aesthetic of the project. Each medium has its own set of technical properties that may dictate that shooting process. For example if I wanted to shoot a scene with two characters sitting and talking to one another I would have to light it, have a sound recording machine that is in sync with the camera and I would have to limit how much film I can burn due to costs. With video, you can get away with limited writing and you have several options for sound recording. Also with video you are not limited in how much footage you can shoot because tape costs are cheap compared to film. Also when I shoot video I can watch what I have just shot to get an idea of the work. With film you have to wait until the footage is processed.
>Q: In regards to the question above, has your position changed from how you have felt in the past and why?
I've enjoy working in both mediums. I try not to compare film and video. Video should be treated as its own unique medium and not to try to mimic or duplicate film. Video is a very flexible electronic signal that has not been fully utilizied in motion pictures. Usually it is used to replace film.
>Q: In regard to aesthetics, how do YOU feel the mediums are different?
The obvious is that one is an electronic signal and the other is a photographic image. Film has a resolution in the millions vs. video that is in the tens of thousands. In regards to aesthetics I feel that both are legitimate mediums and can also be mutated to create new forms of viewing. For example video transfered to film or film transfered to video creates new modes of communication and viewing.
>Q: Do you feel that Digital Video is inferior or superior to 35/16mm film?
Why? *Please keep in mind all variables are relevant...technical, aesthetic,
emotional value, costs, conceptual, user friendly, availability, high/fine
art, etc.
I don't think that they can be compared since the technology is completely different.
>Q: What is the single strongest argument for producing a work digitally?
It's cheaper and the equipment can be lighter in some cases. For me it is the ability to use the video camera as a production device that can record and play back information. My approach to image making is specific to the medium. So with video I have a certain amount of freedom and flexiblity. I could have actors hold the camera and aim on them, I could move the camera and place it in difficult angles to its small size and light weight. I don't model my shots based on traditional film frames because I don't have to. The language of film depends on the limitations of the technology of film. With video you don't have the same restrictions as film and so you can re-interpret the motion picture according to the technology of video.
>Q: Again, in your opinion, what do you feel is the single strongest argument
for producing a work on 35mm or 16mm? (For this question, please keep in mind
that it should be in the context of digital video being available today)
It's apples and oranges. There are many Hollywood movies that are shot on video and then transfered to 35mm. So video is not limited to the distribution of film since it can be transfered to film.
>Q: Has the birth of digital video changed, challenged or allowed 35/16 mm
film medium to evolve into different areas? (The context for this question
derives from the introduction of Photography and the camera, how it?s birth
liberated painting. It no longer was necessary for painters to "document"
people and history.)
I don't think the comparision between photgraphy and paintiing can work in the smae contect as film and video. Digital video has emphasized the difference between film and video and certainly has challenged the distribution of film. There are some theaters that are offering digital projection which will evetaully replace film projectors. But I think film will always be around.
>Q: What is your vision for the future of the Digital film?
It will eveolve and get better. But it will never look like film.
>Q: What is your vision for the future of 35/16mm?
It's here to stay.
>Q: Please give us an approximation of how many pieces you have shot in 35mm?
16mm film? How many pieces shot on digital?
I have shot 8 movies on DV and 7 movies on 16mm film and 3 movies that use both 16mm & DV.
>Q: Of these "films", are any online so that the readers/students can view
and possibly refer to for further understanding of your examples/arguments?
If so, please provide URLS)
http://www.dancehabibi.com
>Q: At this moment, do you prefer shooting film or digital and why?
I have no prefrence. The shooting medium will effect the execution and aesthetic of the project. Each medium has its own set of technical properties that may dictate that shooting process. For example if I wanted to shoot a scene with two characters sitting and talking to one another I would have to light it, have a sound recording machine that is in sync with the camera and I would have to limit how much film I can burn due to costs. With video, you can get away with limited writing and you have several options for sound recording. Also with video you are not limited in how much footage you can shoot because tape costs are cheap compared to film. Also when I shoot video I can watch what I have just shot to get an idea of the work. With film you have to wait until the footage is processed.
>Q: In regards to the question above, has your position changed from how you have felt in the past and why?
I've enjoy working in both mediums. I try not to compare film and video. Video should be treated as its own unique medium and not to try to mimic or duplicate film. Video is a very flexible electronic signal that has not been fully utilizied in motion pictures. Usually it is used to replace film.
>Q: In regard to aesthetics, how do YOU feel the mediums are different?
The obvious is that one is an electronic signal and the other is a photographic image. Film has a resolution in the millions vs. video that is in the tens of thousands. In regards to aesthetics I feel that both are legitimate mediums and can also be mutated to create new forms of viewing. For example video transfered to film or film transfered to video creates new modes of communication and viewing.
>Q: Do you feel that Digital Video is inferior or superior to 35/16mm film?
Why? *Please keep in mind all variables are relevant...technical, aesthetic,
emotional value, costs, conceptual, user friendly, availability, high/fine
art, etc.
I don't think that they can be compared since the technology is completely different.
>Q: What is the single strongest argument for producing a work digitally?
It's cheaper and the equipment can be lighter in some cases. For me it is the ability to use the video camera as a production device that can record and play back information. My approach to image making is specific to the medium. So with video I have a certain amount of freedom and flexiblity. I could have actors hold the camera and aim on them, I could move the camera and place it in difficult angles to its small size and light weight. I don't model my shots based on traditional film frames because I don't have to. The language of film depends on the limitations of the technology of film. With video you don't have the same restrictions as film and so you can re-interpret the motion picture according to the technology of video.
>Q: Again, in your opinion, what do you feel is the single strongest argument
for producing a work on 35mm or 16mm? (For this question, please keep in mind
that it should be in the context of digital video being available today)
It's apples and oranges. There are many Hollywood movies that are shot on video and then transfered to 35mm. So video is not limited to the distribution of film since it can be transfered to film.
>Q: Has the birth of digital video changed, challenged or allowed 35/16 mm
film medium to evolve into different areas? (The context for this question
derives from the introduction of Photography and the camera, how it?s birth
liberated painting. It no longer was necessary for painters to "document"
people and history.)
I don't think the comparision between photgraphy and paintiing can work in the smae contect as film and video. Digital video has emphasized the difference between film and video and certainly has challenged the distribution of film. There are some theaters that are offering digital projection which will evetaully replace film projectors. But I think film will always be around.
>Q: What is your vision for the future of the Digital film?
It will eveolve and get better. But it will never look like film.
>Q: What is your vision for the future of 35/16mm?
It's here to stay.
Sunday, December 01, 2002
A Short Reaction to Casey’s Blogg
"But I’m not thrilled about the idea of interactive cinema. Cinema is about writing with light. This sounds more like a computer game, and they can go ahead and create a new medium, but I like my cinema 2D and single narrative....I’m not sure I agree that everything has to be interactive. Isn’t it enough to elicit an emotional response?"
Casey Koehler, Blogg from Nov.26th, 2002
Casey’s question is very provocative. I recently heard a segment on NPR’s All Things Considered, regarding the future of television and marketing. The guest was excited about Hollywood’s "vision" for the digital future, a time not so far ahead where the view would be able to click their remote at the TV and be able to order the sweater Rachel, from Friends, was wearing. More exciting to me is a time a little more down the road, where moviegoers would be given a devise of some sort where they too could click at the furniture, clothes, earrings and cars on the movie screen. The entire set would be a virtual shopping Mecca of viewing, all which would be recorded on this devise, with our emails, addresses and credit card info plugged in by us before the movie begins. This would be an incredible and wonderful opportunity for business and Hollywood; a match made in heaven.
Hollywood would have access to all types of free ware, with businesses scrabbling to woo executives on what would be the perfect hit for their movie release. Good shopping movies would have the extra edge, no longer would it be necessary to have great stars or mega advertising. Word of mouth could be spread on Oprah and Martha Stewart... "This is my favorite new Afghan rug, which you can purchase before it hits the stores, if you shop at Speilberg's hit flick, The Time Before". Sleeper hits would spread word of mouth, not because of a powerful storyline, or the mesmerizing acting of an unknown star. NO, great shopping, convenient shopping can all be done by your dinner and a date Friday night.
Think of the possibilities! Movies fledging in attendance can offer two for one discount on all computer equipment shown on the movie set. If you can find it...click on it and you have just saved yourself $1000 off your Christmas budget. For this entire Thanksgiving weekend, I have watched local news coverage of the lines forming at five a.m. outside of Best Buy and the malls. Why bother? America’s past time is going to the movies and watching TV; what better way can Hollywood and business serve us countrymen if not by having it all at the touch of our fingertips, right there, with our favorite movie stars marketing it to us, as they rightly should be doing so.
I know you are all reading this and are thinking this is the demise of good movies. Don’t be cynical too quick, just think of the star power that will be involved. Great Actors, like Jennifer Love Hewitt, not only has the power to insist on starring in only great movies, but great shopping movies, providing us with great brands and great stories.
The music industry can curb that pesky little MP3 problem they have by allowing us to click on musical credits and ordering the unreleased soundtracks so that we can be the first to have J. Lo’s hot single blaring from our stereos. This bonus feature is truly fantastic for the viewer that might have had the misfortune of getting a little too caught up in the storyline and forgetting to click away.... it’s also one more opportunity to view all the sponsors (as well as the trivial info of the names of actors, producers and directors) and get their catalogs sent to us at home. Sci-fi junkies would have wonderful specific target material coming to their home addresses, not the typical junk mail from Pottery Barn.
All ordered material can be specified to color, size and dimension after the show. Forgot to click on that perfect BMW? No matter, stay for the second showing and click away. Better yet, watch each movie twice...once for the story (and to get a good look at everything) and once for the shopping.
No longer will we only quote lines from our favorite movies. We will quote entire scenes, full of set design, fashion and music. We will know which actors and directors are affiliated with the best gear. We will be doing America a great favor, reducing the need for archaic retail outlets that require precious land and resources. Cut the jobs, trim the expenses let business and Hollywood grow!
NO, it’s not enough for cinema to elicit an emotional response, Casey. America is open for business!
"But I’m not thrilled about the idea of interactive cinema. Cinema is about writing with light. This sounds more like a computer game, and they can go ahead and create a new medium, but I like my cinema 2D and single narrative....I’m not sure I agree that everything has to be interactive. Isn’t it enough to elicit an emotional response?"
Casey Koehler, Blogg from Nov.26th, 2002
Casey’s question is very provocative. I recently heard a segment on NPR’s All Things Considered, regarding the future of television and marketing. The guest was excited about Hollywood’s "vision" for the digital future, a time not so far ahead where the view would be able to click their remote at the TV and be able to order the sweater Rachel, from Friends, was wearing. More exciting to me is a time a little more down the road, where moviegoers would be given a devise of some sort where they too could click at the furniture, clothes, earrings and cars on the movie screen. The entire set would be a virtual shopping Mecca of viewing, all which would be recorded on this devise, with our emails, addresses and credit card info plugged in by us before the movie begins. This would be an incredible and wonderful opportunity for business and Hollywood; a match made in heaven.
Hollywood would have access to all types of free ware, with businesses scrabbling to woo executives on what would be the perfect hit for their movie release. Good shopping movies would have the extra edge, no longer would it be necessary to have great stars or mega advertising. Word of mouth could be spread on Oprah and Martha Stewart... "This is my favorite new Afghan rug, which you can purchase before it hits the stores, if you shop at Speilberg's hit flick, The Time Before". Sleeper hits would spread word of mouth, not because of a powerful storyline, or the mesmerizing acting of an unknown star. NO, great shopping, convenient shopping can all be done by your dinner and a date Friday night.
Think of the possibilities! Movies fledging in attendance can offer two for one discount on all computer equipment shown on the movie set. If you can find it...click on it and you have just saved yourself $1000 off your Christmas budget. For this entire Thanksgiving weekend, I have watched local news coverage of the lines forming at five a.m. outside of Best Buy and the malls. Why bother? America’s past time is going to the movies and watching TV; what better way can Hollywood and business serve us countrymen if not by having it all at the touch of our fingertips, right there, with our favorite movie stars marketing it to us, as they rightly should be doing so.
I know you are all reading this and are thinking this is the demise of good movies. Don’t be cynical too quick, just think of the star power that will be involved. Great Actors, like Jennifer Love Hewitt, not only has the power to insist on starring in only great movies, but great shopping movies, providing us with great brands and great stories.
The music industry can curb that pesky little MP3 problem they have by allowing us to click on musical credits and ordering the unreleased soundtracks so that we can be the first to have J. Lo’s hot single blaring from our stereos. This bonus feature is truly fantastic for the viewer that might have had the misfortune of getting a little too caught up in the storyline and forgetting to click away.... it’s also one more opportunity to view all the sponsors (as well as the trivial info of the names of actors, producers and directors) and get their catalogs sent to us at home. Sci-fi junkies would have wonderful specific target material coming to their home addresses, not the typical junk mail from Pottery Barn.
All ordered material can be specified to color, size and dimension after the show. Forgot to click on that perfect BMW? No matter, stay for the second showing and click away. Better yet, watch each movie twice...once for the story (and to get a good look at everything) and once for the shopping.
No longer will we only quote lines from our favorite movies. We will quote entire scenes, full of set design, fashion and music. We will know which actors and directors are affiliated with the best gear. We will be doing America a great favor, reducing the need for archaic retail outlets that require precious land and resources. Cut the jobs, trim the expenses let business and Hollywood grow!
NO, it’s not enough for cinema to elicit an emotional response, Casey. America is open for business!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
