Comments on: Books v. Movies

By: Mike Madison

Mike Madison — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:34:37 +0000

Film is more than cinematography, of course. “The movie business” isn’t the same thing as “film” (or “cinema”), and “the movies” always struck me as a term about popular culture, not about creativity. Not that those two things are perfectly distinct.

There’s room for all of the words, but they connote (and denote) different things.

By: MT

MT — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:06:13 +0000

Actually, if one is looking for gravitas, at the cost of a few syllables one can always talk about “cinema.” Like calling your talk “a history of the nude in cinema” when you plan to show videos of naked women. Beats the pants off “film.”

By: MT

MT — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:57:58 +0000

Cinematography is a method of making art. Playwrights and composers often work _in the movie business_. I know John Williams’ music only from _the movies_, for example. There’s room for both words, but were we to bump one off it might not be missed.

By: Mike Madison

Mike Madison — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:40:29 +0000

“Film” is a medium and a method of making art, even if the word itself is becoming a metaphor as digital takes over for emulsion. A “movie” is a thing. There’s room enough to talk about both.

By: MT

MT — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:43:20 +0000

I know “film” sounds cooler than “movie,” but it’s only movies that are long for this World Wide Web. So I suggest we all talk and write accordingly. “Film,” as in photographic emulsion, is outtahere, hard on the heels of the LP.