Anyone who even casually frequents the current online hot spots for film discussion is well aware of the ongoing raging debate about the future of film criticism. The alarmism is so resounding it may be reverberating in our heads for some time to come; but ultimately all the hand-wringing over the death of print criticism as it slowly, inexorably moves to the web is not just attention-grabbing shortsightedness—it’s the wrong target. It’s not simply film writing that’s been democratized by the digital realm, but film itself, and perhaps we’re better off first focusing on the changes therein, rather than turning the spotlight on ourselves.

In recent years, film trade magazines, blogs, panels, and the like have devoted themselves ad nauseam to discussing the implications of the digital on our beloved art form. Most obviously cinematography, but also editing, special effects, and even performances have been dissected under this new technological microscope, as filmmakers have lined up on both sides of the digital divide. Movies are now regularly either shot, or more often edited, digitally; digital projectors are becoming more commonplace; and in many cases films are bypassing traditional avenues of physical distribution altogether, existing only on hard drives and digital streams instead of prints and tapes. In 2008, we're far from being able to talk about just George Lucas and a few isolated DIY others; it’s nearly impossible to find a filmmaker who hasn't succumbed in some form. So why has a journal born five years ago on the cusp of digital explosion, such as Reverse Shot, only treaded lightly here until now? Read the rest of the intro here, and then click here to start sorting through our 22nd symposium, The New World: Reverse Shot Goes Digital, featuring articles on Godard, Lynch, Mann, Malick, Bergman, Marker, and many more.

Reverse Shot's Take One symposium (RS #17) last year inaugurated a new series focused on examining the fundamentals of film form. We gave our writers a challenge: pick a single, memorable shot and use it as a springboard for reconsidering a film, filmmaker, or even cinema itself. We didn’t in any way expect that the moratorium on entire films would prove to be a limiting factor, but we may also have underestimated the ingenuity of our writers—everyone brought their best to bear, making Take One a success that far exceeded our wildest expectations. Exciting, but maybe we went a little easy on them. This time around, we upped the ante.

Click here to read Take Two: In the Cut.

Well, we almost didn't do it...but there it sits anyway, our new, extensive Brian De Palma symposium, Junk Art. We won't go into much detail here, because God knows we SURE AS HELL DO ON THE MAIN SITE...so just dig in and enjoy. We have to go rest now....

Thanks to all who contributed to this great issue; we couldn't be more pleased with it.

-Sincerely, Reverse Shot

Over at the Back Row Manifesto, Tom Hall chimes in with his own personal "Take" from Gimmer Shelter in response to our newest symposium. Definitely worth a read (especially since, as Tom notes, we didn't cover any documentaries--ouch) and we're more than flattered that we've inspired this addition.

Given that we do these symposiums as a means of bringing some kind of collective force to bear on an idea or issue, if there's anyone else out there with their own "Take One," please feel free to blog it and send us a link or drop it in the comments. We take all comers.

Entering summer’s dog days, we’re starting to feel somewhat lethargic. Maybe that’s why for this issue of Reverse Shot we could only muster the energy to fixate on one shot. Just one single shot—from any movie, whatever genre, whatever period—forms the basis for our newest symposium, Reverse Shot: Take One. Take One inaugurates an ongoing series of symposiums in which our writers will tackle the whole of a film through some fundamental piece of cinematic construction: an edit, musical cue, color, and so on. We hope this back to basics approach will work as much to help our readers rediscover the pleasures of film form, as it will to ensure that our writers maintain their relationship to the same.

So, Take One is then a means to an end: getting back to the intrinsic power of the image. It’s easy to take a film and view it through a lens proscribed by the Reverse Shot editorial team, perhaps less easy to view a work through a small portion of the terms it sets forward for itself. We asked our staff writers and contributors to choose a single shot, whether that be a long take or an insert, a momentary flash or a monumental camera movement, and devote their words to it, putting it into whatever emotional, theoretical, or historical context they desired. What’s revealed? The meaning of the shot, both to the writer and to the films from which they came. Something seemingly simple, but which proved thoroughly expansive.

Check it out.