Egg Born Son
Veteran
The article was written by the journalist, not the scientist. I didn't read the article as being about cinema at all but rather that it was discussed as an illustrative point of a potential avenue of research, to expand on the potential application of the science he is interested in for the purpose of funding. In fact the grant he actually received was for architecture.
I didn't get the impression that developing a new language for cinema to be his primary goal at all. In fact the journalist identified a couple of instances where the existing language of cinema already caters for examples and goals the scientist raised. I'm sure any of us could cite several more. His suggestions primarily amount to visual trickery around perspective more than a new language, which is already used sparingly for effect in effects and money shots. I could be wrong but I did not feel from his words that the scientist currently possesses a deep understanding of the existing language of cinema and that his movie-going experience is unlikely to be encyclopedic.
All of which isn't to say that the results of his research will not be of use for film makers or find its way into new techniques. And that if it does arise it will be filmmakers that adapt that new knowledge into new techniques and codes rather than the researchers. Even in science it is generally the engineer that derives practical purpose from the research. But I think in reality his research intents are far more broad than our particular interest and that potential research grant funding is his primary goal for participating in the article.
Last edited:
