Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:57:08 +0200
From: Rob van Gerwen <Rob.vanGerwen-AT-phil.ruu.nl>
Subject: Re: Shots and pixels (was: Re: Big Video)


Michael

I am sorry, you are right about my bashing distinctions regarding the
various kinds of film traditions. Sure, Bresson is not a representative of
European cinema, and yes many a Japanese film will use the very techniques
I attribute to Hollywood films, among which some may use the techniques
used by, say, Bresson.

I was using examples und used the wrong terminology to refer to them.
Thanks for the correction.

Then Michael said:

>More generally, you seem to be taking the well-worn "ontological" path of
>much film theory, from the "naive realism" of early film journalism to the
>"naive formalism" of, say, Rudolph Arnheim. Why try to find an "essence"
>to cinema (or video) beyond the uses to which it's put? The quest only
>seems to blind you to the inventedness of film images and the reliance of
>video (historically if not "ideally") on existent objects.

Many things can be said about 'the well-worn "ontological" path' except
that it is dispensable. Whenever philosophical remarks about film are going
to be made reference has to be made to this 'path'. It may be well-worn,
but that doesn't mean it is well understood.

Explain to me what is wrong with naive realism (not that I am taking this
stand, but you seem to think I do).

What can I say.

___________________________________________

Rob van Gerwen
Dept. of Philosophy
Utrecht University
P.O.Box 80.126
3508 TC Utrecht
The Netherlands

Phone: + 31 30 532087
Fax: + 31 30 532816
E-mail: Rob.vanGerwen-AT-phil.ruu.nl
World Wide Web Home Page URL:
http://www.phil.ruu.nl/home/rob/rob.html
___________________________________________




     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------