Drexl

Well, he says it can be video. The hologram in Star Wars and the video phone in 2001 would probably qualify.

MartinBlank

Barbarella

Clash of the Titans?

The Passion of The Christ?

Charlie Goose

My theory holds that every film ever made contains a masturbating chimpanzee.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Images in Muslim Iran generally, and Iranian cinema specifically are generally prohibited. Thus, there are plenty of Iranian films that contain no photographs or graven images of any kind. One example among many, though it was made before the restrictions on cinema were in place, would be Dariush Mehrjui's The Cow (1969).



I believe this is incorrect. As I recall there were no masturbating chimpanzees in David O. Russell's Spanking the Monkey (1994).

rabbit77

It's a long-running joke in the adult forum to comment on the electrical outlets in the background of nude modeling pictures. Probably started because you can tell if the model is posing in europe or the US based on the outlet.

Sex Fiend

Actually, just to blow the whole silly theory out of the water (and probably kill off this thread altogether), try naming any westerns that feature still photographs (or any of the other representational surrogates this guy ridiculously allows, for that matter). Of course, there are one or two obvious ones (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), but you will run out of examples pretty quickly.

Case closed...

Yakuza Bengoshi

You're right. I can't think of a single western with a 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' poster in it.

Jason

How about The Great Train Robbery (1904). I can't remember if there's a wanted poster in it, but if there isn't, this should qualify. There damn well isn't a hologram in it.

The Black

The film Cube...

Though it's just a wild guess, I haven't seen it in a while.

Sex Fiend

Uhh, yeahh... every western has a 'wanted poster' in it...

Supermallet

How about any one of a hundred different nature documentaries?

Also, it's ridiculous to say "paintings and videos are the same as still photos." Paintings are representations, photos are reproductions. Videos are reproductions, but they're moving and thus have a different effect.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Huh?

PopcornTreeCt

There a scene in 300 where Leonidas draws up a battle plan in the sand. That would probably count against this guy's wacked opinion.

Sex Fiend

The point being that the handful (or several or dozen - doesn't really matter) of westerns which actually use a depiction of a wanted poster on-screen hardly proves the theory that the guy mentioned in the original post is propounding. The fact is relatively few westerns actually show a wanted poster, drawing, photograph, painting, or any other kind of photo-representational element this crackpot claims are a ubiquitous part of the story element of every film ever made.

And beyond that very obvious example, how about Bible epics? Or sword-and-sandal flicks? I guarantee there are extremely few if any films in those genres that feature still photos or anything remotely like them.

toddly6666

They should give this guy a "stupidest waste of time" award. And I feel bad for the wife who's constantly getting tapped on the shoulder for every time he sees a photo. What a genius.

On a similar note, I've done the same amount of years of research, and I can prove to you that ALL films contain a penis.

sundog

2001 has actual black and white photographs: when Floyd and crew are flying to the monolith, he is examining photographs of the excavation.

And that is all the time I am wasting on this person's thesis.

Supermallet

That's the problem, the guy expanded his definition of "photos" to include drawings and paintings.

I thought the exact same thing about his wife, by the way. Poor woman has to live with this guy. Seeing movies with him must be hell.

Greg MacGuffin

If I was this guy's wife and he tapped me on the shoulder every time a photograph appeared, I would punch his balls in.

Supermallet

The more I thought about this guy's letter, the more it bugged me. I just sent off a response to Roger Ebert, which I'm pasting here, as who knows if he'll ever publish it:

Hello Roger,

I am writing this in response to the recent message in your column about still photos being in every film. I had several issues with Brad Fay's contention and I wanted to address them.

Mr. Fay is clearly discussing the use of photographs in film, but at a certain point expands his definition of "photography" to include drawings, paintings, and video. Anyone with a decent understanding of psychology will know that the human mind reacts differently to photos, which are reproductions, than they do to paintings, which are representations. Similarly, while video IS a reproduction, it's still a different medium from photography and our minds do not process the two the same way. While drawings/paintings and video may be used in the same way that photographs are (to allow the audience to reflect and put their own meaning into the work), the method of delivery is decidedly not the same. His definition is so broad that I wonder why he does not include typography, street signs, and naturally occurring phenomena such as cloud formations, all of which, if a filmmaker chose, could be used for the same purpose as a photograph.

At one point Mr. Fay writes, "Indeed, I think all film writers (probably unconsciously), must go through a process wherein they have written themselves into a corner and can only escape by writing a still photograph into the script." To me, this reeks of coming to a conclusion before you test your hypothesis. To suggest that all writers everywhere "write themselves into corners" that only a photograph can get them out of, every single time they write, is simply ridiculous, and says more about Mr. Fay than it does the films he's watching.

I think Mr. Fay took a small suggestion and blew it up to the point where the actual quality and content of the films becomes secondary to the question of where and when a still photograph will appear. The fact that he's expanded his definition so widely shows that he's not approaching this in a logical manner, as that would have long ago shown that not every film contains photographs. He even berates Ken Burns, an excellent filmmaker, for not using more still photographs in one of his documentaries, as if the use of still imagery was more important than the story Burns was telling. Trying to look at only one single element of filmmaking, in this case the presence of still imagery, to the exclusion of all others invariably reduces the experience to nothing but the answer to a trivia question. It would be the same as if I watched movies only to see how many times the color blue appears. These elements are meant to be at the service of the story, not the sole focus of the audience.

I do find it funny, though, that even though Mr. Fay has been working on this subject since the early 1980's, he's never noticed that there are literally hundreds of nature documentaries that have no still images in them whatsoever.

Jay G.

^I think you've definitively closed the book on this argument with that post. I especially like the ending line. I just saw Microcosmos a few weeks ago, a film Ebert gave 4 stars to, and there's no stills or even paintings to be found in that film.

Jon2

FWIW, Mr. Fay's "definition" of a still image is so broad as to be inherently meaningless in his attempt to establish some sort of "relationship" between "stills" and moving images. Especially as he makes the observation that moving images are just a series of stills.

Me thinks Mr. Fay has obsessive/compulsive issues.

Well, let me give Mr. Fay something different to obsess about.

Don't think of a polar bear...

in a snow storm.

Supermallet

Would this be a photographed polar bear, a drawn/painted polar bear, or a video taped polar bear?

headrippa

I don't think March of the Penguins had a photo in it.

maxfisher

The inclusion of video tape is idiotic, but otherwise wouldn't his 'still photograph' be defined as a shot within a movie in which neither the camera nor anything in the frame moves? I don't think he's saying that every movie has a shot of a photograph/painting/drawing in it, as many here seem to be implying. Maybe I'm misinterpreting him, but I'm thinking the use of the word 'photograph' was just a poor choice by him. The guy probably has too much free time on his hands, but the next time I watch a movie, I'll most likely notice if there's a still shot. The same thing has happened to me after reading an article and watching a youtube video on the Wilhelm scream.

starman9000

No, that's exactly what he is saying. Look at all his examples.


Photograph was a poor choice by him though. It would make more sense if he said "every film contains some externally created visual imagery" That would include photos, drawings, videos, etc...