RE: [Leica] Still and motion pictures

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

Greetings, Phong!

	You wrote,

>      The film footage however shows more:  Ted mentioned the
>      gushing blood.  I'd like to mention another, more subtle detail:
>      you can see that the General walked away from the prisoner
>      at first, and then suddenly  turned around and swiftly shot the man.
>      In that turnabout, lies the complexity of the situation and of the
>      war:  The General had just found out  that the entire
>      family of someone very close him, including a baby, was 
>      wiped out  that morning by a VC terrorist group operating in
>      the vicinity where the prisoner was captured.  In that split of
>      a second, destiny took over and the General couldn't let go,
>      couldn't just walk away.
> 
		However, I don't think that even the film clip would have
told the story you just related.  I will agree that both still and moving
images can be powerful, however- as you demonstrate- words may be the most
powerful medium of all.  I have been profoundly affected by words and all
manner of visual impressions.  However, at the end of the day, I think that
single, still images stay with me more than moving images.  As I noted in
another post, perhaps it is the ease with which we can linger over the still
image and with which we may return to it again and again.  These are
certainly characteristics of still images which often make them icons of
complex, dynamic events.

>     The still photograph intensifies by leaving out details, like a
>     telephoto lens; the movie footage shows more details, which in this
>     case, allow for a richer interpretation.
> 
	I must respectfully disagree.  Neither still nor moving images have
ever been a medium to record all details with accuracy.  It is true that
movies show diachronic details which still images cannot portray, but I
don't think that allows for "richer interpretation."  I believe that
interpretation is all about what the viewer brings to an image, be it still
or moving.

	     But I don't think either medium isintrinsically better or more
powerful, or make more impact.  It all depends on the story you want to
tell, the audience, and the
>     visual language you and your audience are most comfortable
>     with.
> 
	I hope that I didn't imply that one medium is better than the other;
certainly they both have their roles and individual power.

		Buzz