Evaluación externa del videoensayo Vol. 23 N.1
Being There: The Long Take and Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity
Jeffrey Romero Middents
Sección: Videoensayos
Editorial Report
The two reviewers recommend the publication of this video essay with some modifications. Both of them consider the video is a great contribution to the form, both in its reflection on the long take as well as in the making of a video essay that relies on this device, which it’s in a way antipodean to the video essay form. They do have a few suggestions:
Written statement:
The written statement should include further discussion of what, specifically, is added when juxtaposing the principle scene with the opening two shots.
Expanding on why you felt that these “faster” portions fit just as well into Schrader’s account of the long take’s time-halting capabilities might nuance your argument.
Given that the size disparity between the three shots might be jarring to the viewer here, we’re relying on the written statement to make this choice seem worth our attention.
They recommend to develop the idea of the acousmêtre. The video essay seems clear in marking how important it is to Dr. Stone’s sense of alienation and, above all, to the vital interference represented by the interlocutor’s voice. But they would like to see this expanded further in the written statement
The writing needs a fair amount of polishing in order to be publishable, the reviewers have marked some specific recommendations in the attached document, but they also recommend further attention to phrasing throughout.
Format: Could you please change the English quotation marks to Spanish ones (« »)?
Video:
Text within the video essay: It seems necessary to improve how the text is used in the video essay. It’s simply a technical issue—because the reviewers consider that the text is important, but they wonder how to experiment with the text placement and the selection of words in a way that feels more deliberate. The quote about travelers around minute 7–8 feels especially redundant.
The credits go by too fast at the end.
Wondering what the two frames on the right are meant to do, if the intention is for us to “stay” with Dr. Stone inside the capsule. They understand the need to play with form, but it leaves them with questions about the necessity of that choice even after reading the statement. Perhaps the statement could also explain this choice.
External reviewers:
Revisor/a A:
¿El título, resumen y palabras clave son adecuados y en consonancia con el contenido?
Sí.
¿Está la parte escrita bien organizada?
Sí.
¿La parte escrita es lo suficientemente clara y legible en su exposición?
Sí.
¿Aborda cuestiones relevantes para el enfoque y alcance de Teknokultura o para alguno de los monográficos en curso?
Sí.
¿Consideras que el trabajo podría publicarse sin revisiones o correcciones previas?
No
Si opinas que aborda cuestiones relevantes para la revista en general (o alguno de los monográficos vigentes), ¿consideras que el tratamiento y estilo visual contribuyen a la temática y aportan una perspectiva novedosa
Sí.
Si consideras que el video y/o el texto que lo acompaña precisa(n) de correcciones, ¿crees que pequeñas mejoras harían posible su publicación? Por favor, indica que mejorías sería aconsejables a tu entender.
Tal como lo explico más abajo, creo que un par de ajustes tanto al texto como al videoensayo podrían ayudar.
1. Me parece necesario resolver de mejor manera el uso del texto en el videoensayo. Es una cuestión técnica simplemente, no me parece que lo que el texto dice esté de más. Me pregunto si lx autorx tendrá alguna idea de cómo experimentar con esto de forma que resulte más legible y se vea menos como un afterthought. La cita sobre los viajeros en el minuto 7-8 resulta especialmente redundante.
2. Me gustaría ver más desarrollada la idea del acousmêtre, al que lx autorx solamente le dedica un pequeño párrafo que parece un poco desconectado del resto del texto.
3. Los c´reditos pasan muy rápido!
Por favor, comenta los aspectos más relevantes (positivos y mejorables) del videoensayo evaluado (extensión máxima 300 palabras)
Es una tarea difícil hacer un videoensayo que trata de una sola toma larga, donde lo ideal sería dejar la toma tal cual está, sin más. Sin embargo, lx autorx de este videoensayo logra capturar la esencia de su argumento al entregarnos un videoensayo que carece del dinamismo que a veces los caracteriza. En ese sentido, el aporte de este videoensayo respecto a las discusiones sobre la permanencia de la imagen resulta vital.
Me parece que el gran acierto de este videoensayo es como transgrede la estética del algoritmo; es decir, nos obliga a quedarnos, nos hace reflexionar sobre lo que implica observar y participar de la emoción del otrx sin la opción de pasar a lo siguiente. En ese sentido, creo que la apuesta es arriesgada, y por eso mismo rinde frutos.
¿Cuáles son las modificaciones, observaciones o indicaciones que mejorarían la calidad del videoensayo? (extensión máxima 300 palabras)
El videoensayo utiliza el texto de una forma que distrae, precisamente, de ese "estar allí". Por ende, sugeriría que se buscara otra forma de introducir el texto sin que interrumpa a la imagen. Por otro lado, la localización de las oraciones al calce del cuadro hace que sea difícil seguirlas, cuando la imagen tiene tanta prepoderancia y es tan central al argumento del videoensayo. Además del texto, no me queda del todo claro qué es lo que los dos cuadros a la derecha pretenden hacer, si la intención es "quedarnos" con la Dra. Stone en la cápsula. Entiendo que es necesario jugar con la forma, pero me deja dudas que no he logrado resolver ni siquiera leyendo el texto que lo acompaña.
Sobre el texto, me parece que lx autorx no desarrolla la idea del acousmêtre lo suficiente. Al ver el videoensayo, me doy cuenta de lo importante que es para la sensación de alienación de la Dra. Stone y, sobretodo, de la interferencia vital que supone la voz del interlocutor. Me hubiese gustado ver esto más desarrollado en el ensayo.
Reviewer B:
Is the title, as well as the abstract and keywords, adequate and related to the content?
Yes.
Is the written statement well written and organized?
Yes.
Is the written statement easy to read?
No.
Is the video essay relevant to the focus and scope of Teknokultura and/or to the topics and issues approached by ongoing monographic issues?
Yes.
Is the work deserving of publication without revision or amendment?
No.
If you think that the video essay addresses relevant issues to the Journal (and/or to a monograph in question), Do you consider that the treatment and visual style contribute to the subject matter and provide an innovative perspective?
Yes.
If you consider that the video and/or the written statement need corrections, would minor amendment to video or to the written statement make the submission worthy of publication? Please indicate what corrections would be appropriate in your opinion.
It seems to me that Gravity received sufficient plaudits on release for the sense of presence its long takes encourage. This video essay, in arguing against Schrader’s prescriptive account, then risks simply reconfirming what has seemed to be the consensus—and when it comes to a topic as well-trodden as the long take, it’s best to offer something new. Nevertheless, Schrader’s text and the image do make a nice pairing, and the argument is largely convincing. The written statement should include further discussion of what, specifically, is added when juxtaposing the principle scene with the opening two shots. Expanding on why you felt that these “faster” portions fit just as well into Schrader’s account of the long take’s time-halting capabilities might nuance your argument. Finally, the size disparity between the three views is somewhat awkward—it is hard for the viewer to give adequate attention to each, but I suspect that attempting to preserve the aspect ratio leaves you in a bit of a bind here. We’re relying, then, on the written statement to if not explicitly justify this choice, at least make it seem worth our attention. The writing needs a fair amount of polishing in order to be publishable, I marked some specific recommendations in the attached document, but I also recommend further attention to phrasing throughout.
Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the video essay. (300 words maximum)
In pairing Paul Schrader's own praise for the asceticism of the long take with footage from a filmmaker he himself disparaged, this video opens up space to explore the technique's enduring ability to instill a sense of presence in the viewer. Schrader's curmudgeonly emphasis on the the long-take as halting the forward motion of modernity is perhaps an ironic counterpoint to Gravity's cutting edge technological achievements—but the author here shows us that this need not be the case. For Gravity is nothing if not a movie about fighting against technology.
Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the video essay? (300 words maximum)
The written statement should include further discussion of what, specifically, is added when juxtaposing the principle scene with the opening two shots. Expanding on why you felt that these “faster” portions fit just as well into Schrader’s account of the long take’s time-halting capabilities might nuance your argument. Given that the size disparity between the three shots might be jarring to the viewer here, we’re relying on the written statement to make this choice seem worth our attention.
El videoensayo fue modificado atentiendo a las revisiones previamente a su publicación
