This blog entry in combination with the reading is intended to be used as a flip lecture. It is an exploratory analysis of the reading (these are notes towards a discussion with students):
The quote used from Simons in the studio guide, which is used to inform this studio:
The pocket film is an offspring not of the cinema, but of the same new media technologies that have dramatically changed the contemporary mediascape. Rather that approaching the micromovie as one of many examples of “remediation” of and old medium – film – by new media technologies and looking at this new format as a “continuation of the old medium with other means,” it might be more fertile to approach the pocket film from the perspective of new media of which it is part (5-6).
– Simons, Jan. “Pockets in the Screen-Scape: Movies on the Move.” MiT6, Stone and Papyrus, Storage and Transmission. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2009. 1–17. Print.
— in regards to the outcomes of this course and the qualities identified in the case studies and preliminary sketches.
Fourth Screen
Firstly, with the shift to mobile devices (iphone and tablet) and the move away from purchasing desktop and laptop computers the aim in this course is to consider the affordances of mobile phones, computers and the network in regards to both the content and the mobile phone as the screen that it will be viewed on. Simons refers to the mobile screen as the ‘fourth screen’ in reference to Juliana Pearce 2005 article,”The Fourth Screen”. (1. cinema 2. TV, 3. Computer 4. Mobile) – I guess a tablet and its variations must be in there now too – perhaps ‘fifth, or sixth screen’? So, even though the final video works are destined for potential cinema screening in this course we aim to design the content for screening on a mobile phone.
Pocket Book
Simons provides a parallel connection between ‘mobile films’ as ‘pocket films’ and ‘pocket books’ which ‘evokes connotations of portability, mobility, and easy digestibility’ (2009 p.3). The works can be taken in while on the move in amongst distractions. They should be short in duration. How short is short?
Low-fi
Even though since this analysis was written (2009) there have been improvements in smartphone cameras for recording video and screen viewing quality – compared to other video cameras the recording is relatively low-fi. In reference to Juliana Pearce 2005 article,’The Fourth Screen’, Simons draws attention to using a smartphone in a particular way to make a mobile film – “Wide shots, pans, surround sound, mood lighting and anything with to much detail is no go for mobile movies” (Pierce 2005). In regards to viewing on a small “thumbnail screen” ‘close ups and medium shots are mandatory'(Simons p. 4). This brings up an interesting challenge in terms of zooming functionality or mastering how to work with a smartphone in regards to the recording position. Another consideration is sound limitations, although some mobile filmmakers are developing hardware work arounds just like with DSLR cameras. The issue with adding peripheral hardware is then loosing mobility and accessibility in regards to recording.
Communication over Representation
‘Outside the cinema and living room, the moving image takes on other functions, the most important of those being to draw and possibly fix the attention of the viewer’ (Simons 2009, p. 8)
‘Besides drawing attention to itself, the moving image is being put to tasks of informing and instructing, luring and persuading, performing and parading, surveying and summoning, and, of course, entertaining and amusing’. (Simons 2009, p. 8)
‘The shift from representation to communication is not a particular property of the mega screen that usually operate in highly commercial environments, but is a more general trend in the moving image.’ (Simons 2009, p. 8)
Ketai MMS and YouTube are provided as examples of video being used for communication purposes – messaging rather than representation.
http://keitaiculture.tumblr.com/
This argument on a transformation to using video for communication purposes raises questions around the concept of using mobile-filmmaking to remediate cinematic and televisual forms of representation. Instead, the objective may be to embrace the shift to using a mobile phone to create video content for communication purposes.
Remixability
Simons turns to the field of new media as a means to explore what might constitute a mobile movie practice due to the hardware and software of a mobile phone having a direct connection with new media technologies, and being embedded in new media practice.
In order to get to the concept of ‘remixability’, Simons firstly examines the proliferation of screens and the move away from cinema and television as the dominating screens for viewing moving-image content. This analysis moves into the notion of ‘media convergence’ and the mobile phone being part of the fusion of formats and techniques for producing audiovisual content – brought about by the functionality of the computer. (p.9)
The ability to work with moving-image in a myriad of ways due to this convergence connects with the shift from representation to communication discussed earlier.
Powerpoint films are provided as examples of working with the notion of ‘media convergence’ and ‘remixability’.
In regards to the notion of ‘remixability’ there is the option to “…combine animation, computer animation, special effects, graphic design and typography” (Simons 2009,p.10 cited Manovich 2007)
For instance Information R/evolution, Michael Wesch
Simons argument is that ‘remixability’ is a feature of most applications, which points towards moving-imagery being equally generated on a computer as much as they are recorded using a lens.
What does this mean in regards to a mobile filmmaking practice? In reference to Simons, with mobile phones an integral part of new media technologies and practices it indicates a shift to new types of practices that are yet to be realised.
Free Run, Henry Reichold, 2007 (Simons refers to this video in a Video Vortex 2 article not in regards to it being made with a mobile hone or for screening on one – but in regards to the notion of remixability and providing a ‘pocket-history of cinema, p. 104)
Mobile Phone Affordances
Simons suggests that instead of focusing on what mobile films might be, it would be more constructive to explore what can be made with them, or what they can do.
‘..what lies between the shooting with and screening on a mobile phone’. (Simons 2009, p. 12).
A part of this exploration may involve looking at what the mobile phone due to its size and mobility offers.
Cat Cam (Jan Pieter van Ijzendoorn,NL, 2008)
Waastraat (Car Wash)
JULIE (Wael Koudaih, France 2008)
OBJETS A USAGES MULTIPLES (Multiple Purpose Objects) (Dephine Marceau, France 2008)
‘These and quite a lot of other pocket films, explore the affordances offered by the mobile phone camera, and the stories and situations they give rise to, or the absurdities and contradictions new media devices may instantiate when envisioned from the perspective of the good old fashioned analog world.’ (Simons 2009, p. 12)
2008 The Champion (Rui Avelans Coelho, Portugal, 2007)
But, Simons argues that this type of work is seen as merely providing viewpoints on cinema as it is understood already. The aim instead is to explore the ‘in between’, unrealised aesthetics that are created working with applications and the processing functionality of computers.
References:
Pierce, Juliana. ‘Feature: The Fourth Screen’, Off The Air: Screenrights’ Newsletter, August 2005,
http://www.screen.org/pdfs/about/offtheair/2005/ota0805.pdf.
Manovich, Lev. ‘Understanding Hybrid Media’, 2007, http://www.manovich.net.
Simons, J., 2011. Video Vortex Reader II. Moving Images Beyond YouTube, in G Lovink & R Somers Miles (eds), XS4ALL, Amsterdam, pp. 95-107.