A Clarification
In light of the two responses to my previous Wespeak, I feel that there are a few clarifications and additional points I should make. First and foremost, I would like to sincerely apologize to anyone at the Wesleyan Film Series (WFS) whom I offended. It certainly was not my intent to insult anyone. While I do believe this is an important issue, it is certainly one that can be handled with maturity.
Second, I would like to correct an erroneous assumption made by Christian Skorik ’09 in his Wespeak (“The Film Series is beautiful!” Sept. 26, 2008, Volume CXLIV, Number 8); namely, that I wrote after having seen “Metropolis.” This is only partially true. While “Metropolis” may have been the catalyst for my Wespeak, my frustration had been building over the weeks leading up to that fateful night. You see, every single one of the five films that I have attended so far has been compromised by technical problems. It is also worth pointing out that not all of these films are as old as “Metropolis.” Both “Heathers” and “Jurassic Park” were made within the past 20 years. Can age therefore be used as a justification for the interruptions?
I don’t know the answer to this question. In fact, there is a great deal I don’t know about film. I said as much in my original Wespeak. While both of my detractors were only too happy to point out my ignorance of all things film-related, I have never professed to be an expert. That said, I don’t think it is “presumptuous” for me to call to the attention of the community something that I feel is an issue — even if I am a freshman, a fact which surely does not preclude my having an opinion.
Mr. Longenecker observes in his Wespeak (“Show the Film Series projectionists some respect!” Sept. 26, 2008, Volume CXLIV, Number 8) that “film-based exhibition is a historical and aesthetic tradition we are committed to uphold.” Perhaps an analogy is in order. In classical music, there is a movement known as authentic performance. What this entails is the utilization of period instruments to perform music as it would have been heard when it was first written. The thinking here is that, in such a context, period instruments are superior to modern ones because they are a truer representation of the composer’s creative vision, in that they reproduce music the way it was “meant to be heard.” In essence, authentic performance is an attempt to uphold a historical and aesthetic tradition like the one Mr. Longenecker cites.
Let us say then, for argument’s sake, that authentic performance required musicians to stop and repair their instruments several times during the course of a concert, thereby interrupting the music. Would this, too, be upholding the composer’s vision? Surely filmmakers, like composers, intend for their work to be experienced without interruptions. Perhaps if we are really committed to upholding tradition, we should give more consideration to viewing films as they were meant to be seen: straight through.
I hope this letter has elucidated my position somewhat. Further, I hope that our discussion of the WFS can continue in a sensible and respectful manner.
Leave a Reply