From: Alain LeTourneau (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 18:24:56 PST
Alain:
> >The local reviews of Benning's California Trilogy
> were
> >appalling. The reviewer was content with ignoring
> >Benning's history as well as the history of
> >experimental cinema.
> >
> >I wasn't around in the 1960s and 1970s, and have
> not
> >read many reviews in newspapers of the time, so I
> >don't know if this lack of adventure when it comes
> to
> >the movies is new or old.
--- James Kreul <email suppressed> wrote:
> Benning will be here for the Wisconsin Film Festival
> in two weeks...at
> least you had reviews in Portland. It is very hard
> to get local coverage
> of experimental work, even though three of his four
> screenings have sold
> out their advanced tickets. Editors have an idea of
> what their readers are
> interested in and it is hard to get coverage for
> material outside of that
> somewhat narrow range.
>
> I think the lack of adventure has more to do with
> local papers often
> depending on nationally syndicated reviews rather
> than having qualified (or
> heck, even just curious) local reviewers. And even
> when there are local
> reviewers, their coverage is often indistinguishable
> from syndicated
> reviews--because that's what the readers are
> interested in.
Personally, I think the whole idea of "what readers
want" is pure conjecture. I understand that if the
publication has the funds they do surveys and polls,
but I don't I believe that writers reference this data
when writing articles.
It's usually just knee jerk reactions...."this stuff
is dumb".
> However, I do think more experimental filmmakers
> should think about what is
> needed for programmers to get good local coverage.
> As much as I'd like
> more adventurous arts writing locally, I also
> understand that I need to
> make it possible for reviewers to see the work, and
> that means either
> getting the print well in advance or getting video
> screeners when
> available. If filmmakers do not provide these
> materials (along with a good
> publicity still), they simply won't get coverage.
> And if these
> opportunities are not made frequently for the
> reviewers, the less
> experience they will have with this kind of work.
I agree with you James and think it's important that
filmmakers provide screeners, press clippings, and
stills when available. All this definitely helps,
though some times it doesn't appear to be enough. And
most writer will just glean from the copy you provide
them without giving much in terms of their own
thoughts and feelings. This is a shameful situation.
With film programs and when filmmakers are present for
their programs we have sent press materials to
dailies, weeklies, monthlies, magazines of all sorts
and generally the films are give a cursory
mention....of course it's consistent and we can
usually depend on something but the programs are never
considered for "feature" articles (even in the arts or
film sections of those papers).
I will say that I think having printable stills helps
quite a bit as the papers love to have an image to
print, however there's no guarantees it will be
printed.
Alain
=====
Alain LeTourneau
425 SE 3rd, no. 400
Portland, Oregon 97214 USA
503-231-6548
LIGHTHOUSE CINEMA
http://www.lighthousecinema.org/
16mm - 80th anniversary! (1923-2003)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.