It is, in some ways, unfortunate how many mediamakers suffer a kind of historical conditioning surrounding filmmaking that has made such a stigma out of the process. I m talking about the politics that come attached to the stigma of film, namely how the power and the money to make movies always arrives from purse strings outside of oneself, one s circle of friends, one s co-workers and supporters, ie. Video is ultimately liberating as an artistic and political medium, insofar as it comes unfettered by this stigma which subsists on the hierarchies of commercial enterprise. Before alienating anymore actual filmmakers please allow me this last paragraph to make my point. As someone who experiments in the video medium with ways to bring cinematic value to my work, I know my videofilms will never be film in the truest sense of that word.
Film is film and video is video.
As one s own economic standing improves, actual film footage can be incorporated and edited into the final mix of the videofilm itself. I live to make movies and refuse to wait around to watch others do it for me. I look at the tools at hand and the current means by which my present situation affords to aspire. I pull back, focus and recall how the first filmmakers were photographers directing their own work from behind a camera. It wasn t until later that the role of director was invented when somebody was needed to bark out the orders.