Didn't mean to imply that step-printing would be the same, or
specifically similar, to showing at silent speed. The general point
wasn't that the effects are the same but that a variety of types of
manipulations of film temporality can be used effectively (or not
effectively) for various aims. Whether and how any of the techniques --
step printing or shifts of projection speed -- functions depends on the
specific film, as your example of the Arabic Numeral films nicely implies.
j
On 2/13/12 4:21 PM, Steve Polta wrote:
Of course, Gehr's extension of "A Trip Down Market Street" into his
EUREKA (by step-printing each frame in original eight times (I
believe)) is separate from projection speed; Gehr's EUKEKA is properly
run, for the record at 24fps.
Notably, this sound/speed silent speed results in other effects than
merely slowing down motion or extending time. For example, I can
recall Hollis Frampton's ORDINARY MATTER projected at 16fps and noting
a very strange clarity and stillness to each frame, which I recognized
as possibly the result of a pixilated shooting technique slowed way
down. Notably this is a sound film, with sound played "double system"
(i.e. not on a mag track). Similarly, in a film like Ken Jacobs' TOM
TOM...—created, it is worth noting by filming a film as it is
projected (i.e. not optically or contact printed—am I wrong about
this?) the pulsing projection (at 16fps, or 18 if you must) places the
pulsing projection as a subject of the film.
Another well-known proponent of "silent speed" is of course Nathaniel
Dorsky, who shoots his own films at a variety of camera speeds but
almost always dictates a projection speed of 18fps. Hearing him speak
in the late '90s when presenting selections from Stan Brakhage's
ARABIC NUMERAL series (which, until Dorsky convinced him otherwise
were always screened at 24fps), Dorsky discussed how 18fps placed the
films at the "threshold of flicker" and introduced intimation of
instability into the visual experience. He has since said as much
about his own decision to present his films at this speed. Note well
that the perceptual/physiological experience of viewing a film
projected in this manner is completely different from viewing a
step-printed film projected at 24fps.
Steve Polta
--- On *Mon, 2/13/12, John Matturri /<jmatt...@earthlink.net>/* wrote:
From: John Matturri <jmatt...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Andy Warhol's SLEEP / Providence, RI /
Feb 18 / Magic Lantern + RK Projects
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List"
<frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
Date: Monday, February 13, 2012, 11:24 AM
Not impossible that there was an offhand, perhaps even sarcastically
intended, remark that Mekas repeated or wrote down in his column and
which Brakhage just forgot making. Print has an odd power to take
slight
anecdotes and give them a status beyond their initial intent. (My own
remembering, which may be accurate or not, is that Brakhage said
that he
now saw the point of the film but still was largely unimpressed.)
But of course the real issue is whether the shift in projection speed
really does have the affect that the anecdote attributes to it.
Neither
the authority of SB's statement nor his disavowal has all that much
relevance to that. Certainly there are instances where such shifts
are
transformative -- Ernie Gehr's step-printing of the source of Eureka
--but it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. I've only seen
excerpts of Sleep, so can't judge.
j
On 2/13/12 2:05 PM, Pierce, Greg wrote:
> The essay with the apocryphal story is in Notes After Reseeing
the Films of Andy Warhol by Jonas Mekas. First published in Andy
Warhol by John Coplans in 1970. Reprinted in Andy Warhol Film
Factory by Michael O'Pray in 1989. ~ Greg
>
> ps: More later.
>
>
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> the warhol:
> Greg Pierce
> Assistant Curator of Film and Video
> 117 Sandusky Street
> Pittsburgh, PA 15212
> T 412.237.8332
> F 412.237.8340
> E pier...@warhol.org </mc/compose?to=pier...@warhol.org>
> W www.warhol.org
> W http://members.carnegiemuseums.org
> The Andy Warhol Museum
> One of the four Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh
>
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com
</mc/compose?to=frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com>
[mailto:frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com
</mc/compose?to=frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com>] On Behalf
Of Adam Hyman
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:43 PM
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Andy Warhol's SLEEP / Providence, RI /
Feb 18 / Magic Lantern + RK Projects
>
> Only you can answer that...
>
>
> On 2/13/12 10:35 AM, "Myron Ort"<z...@sonic.net
</mc/compose?to=z...@sonic.net>> wrote:
>
>> In which of the many books scattered around my house did I surely
>> encounter that story?
>>
>> Myron Ort
>>
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Eric Theise wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Myron Ort<z...@sonic.net
</mc/compose?to=z...@sonic.net>> wrote:
>>>> How and why do stories like that get started anyway?
>>> That particular story got started because Jonas Mekas told it. It
>>> continues to be told because it's a good story, and it's lodged in
>>> the collective memory due to the problematic but always cited
early
>>> literature on Warhol's filmmaking.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
</mc/compose?to=FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> The information contained in this message and/or attachments is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking
of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any system and destroy any copies. Any views
expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
</mc/compose?to=FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
</mc/compose?to=FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
