I copied this post from its old location because I felt it important to have on this new blog.

Unlike Rosenbaum, whom I incidentally respect more than any other living movie critic, I think the distinction of a film as a motion picture shot and projected on filmstock is unnecessary. I use the terms film, movie, and motion picture interchangeably because their common use has transcended their original meanings, much as one asks for a Kleenex when referring to a tissue of any brand, or says “Get in the car” when it would be more accurate to say “Get in the SUV.”

Furthermore, the lines between movie mediums have become sufficiently blurred to render such a particular classification for film too burdensome. For example, is a Pixar film - rendered entirely in computers and only at the last moment transferred to filmstock - equally the ‘film’ that a 1940s MGM release is? Also, several recent movies have been shot with a mix of film, video, and computer renderings.

Rosenbaum and others also make the argument that film simply looks different than video or DVD. I concede that my eyes are not finely tuned enough to notice a difference (except that projected film is littered with dust & scratches, while DVDs are clean and vivid), but nobody - Rosenbaum included - has been able to identify the pieces of The Phantom Menace that Lucas shot in digital video instead of film.

A similar argument might be made regarding the terms movie and motion picture. Is La Jetée either, when only a tiny piece of it contains a moving image? Also, I think of Fahrenhype 9/11 as a movie but not G3: Live in Concert or a home video of my day at the zoo, though all are moving images. I cannot now explain the distinction here, but it is a common one.

What do you think?