![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Let's go downtown and talk to the modern kids
I went to my rehearsal. I ran my two duets. Then apparently I looked enough like I had a fever that they sent me home, which was probably for the best. I am seriously considering going to bed.
From Alexander Mackendrick's On Film-making (2004), ed. Paul Cronin:
The key to the Film Grammar class is the common-sense notion that if we are living in the era in which children—before they can spell or read—are exposed to the moving-picture image on television, then what we should be doing is teaching people about the images they are reading and instruct them how to speak back in this visual language that is the literacy of today. In short, it is important that citizens become consciously aware of cinema's conditioning influences. It is not, however, enough to be merely receptive to its codes of communication. To be literate in a medium is to be able to write as well as read. To know how film and video communicate (and, in turn, manipulate), one should also be able to speak the 'language' and have some idea of how a film is made.
The book is a selection of Mackendrick's handouts and notes from the twenty-five years he taught at the California Institute of the Arts until his death in 1993; I don't know when this paragraph was written, but I'm guessing his students weren't in the habit of recording events around them with their cellphones, or uploading their own music videos to YouTube, or recutting footage of their favorite shows and movies in order to retell or critique them (or subtitling Hitler). All of which are activities that no longer require access to specialized equipment or even necessarily an investment in film as a field and are proliferating, which certainly sounds like an increase in writing as well as reading; I don't know if it means that we have become a more film-literate society, or if most of us are just speaking the cinematic equivalent of tweet-speak, but let's assume it's not the latter, because I'd love to know whether mainstream film grammar (which Mackendrick admits is an imprecise and probably misleading term: "The semiotics professors use terms like 'syntactic articulations' to describe the way shots and camera angles can be organised to represent a coherent, though imaginary space/time continuum, but it's rather a mouthful") is altering in response to being so casually and frequently spoken back to. Or maybe that all happened in the '80's and we're onto a different dialect now.
From Alexander Mackendrick's On Film-making (2004), ed. Paul Cronin:
The key to the Film Grammar class is the common-sense notion that if we are living in the era in which children—before they can spell or read—are exposed to the moving-picture image on television, then what we should be doing is teaching people about the images they are reading and instruct them how to speak back in this visual language that is the literacy of today. In short, it is important that citizens become consciously aware of cinema's conditioning influences. It is not, however, enough to be merely receptive to its codes of communication. To be literate in a medium is to be able to write as well as read. To know how film and video communicate (and, in turn, manipulate), one should also be able to speak the 'language' and have some idea of how a film is made.
The book is a selection of Mackendrick's handouts and notes from the twenty-five years he taught at the California Institute of the Arts until his death in 1993; I don't know when this paragraph was written, but I'm guessing his students weren't in the habit of recording events around them with their cellphones, or uploading their own music videos to YouTube, or recutting footage of their favorite shows and movies in order to retell or critique them (or subtitling Hitler). All of which are activities that no longer require access to specialized equipment or even necessarily an investment in film as a field and are proliferating, which certainly sounds like an increase in writing as well as reading; I don't know if it means that we have become a more film-literate society, or if most of us are just speaking the cinematic equivalent of tweet-speak, but let's assume it's not the latter, because I'd love to know whether mainstream film grammar (which Mackendrick admits is an imprecise and probably misleading term: "The semiotics professors use terms like 'syntactic articulations' to describe the way shots and camera angles can be organised to represent a coherent, though imaginary space/time continuum, but it's rather a mouthful") is altering in response to being so casually and frequently spoken back to. Or maybe that all happened in the '80's and we're onto a different dialect now.
no subject
I'm going to have to think about the quote from On Film-making, and your thoughts. I'm not a very visual person, but I think there's something interesting there. Thank you for sharing.
no subject
Thank you.