From: Alain LeTourneau (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Mar 22 2004 - 11:00:46 PST
--- Fred Camper <email suppressed> wrote:
> Well, of course it's right that some "arts editors"
> think they shouldn't cover avant-garde work, but
> fortunately there is also the "Chicago Reader"
I'm aware of the situation in Chicago and only wish
that local writers in Portland took the work as
seriously....or serious enough to write long reviews.
When running an exhibition series we can usually
expect a long-ish review once a year or once every 6-8
months.
> In terms of getting coverage, it also helps if
> there's a knowledgeable
> film writer who genuinely cares about avant-garde
> film and who can make
> the case for coverage to an editor.
I've seen a few writers leave publications because of
bullheaded editors. The largest circulating weekly in
Portland has one of the worst editors, and in general
someone not terribly interested in anything but a
particular genre of film....and it aint experimental.
> Getting screeners early wouldn't help in my case
> since I never knowingly
> write about films from seeing only the videos. But
> I've found that with
> some effort distributors, and individual filmmakers,
> will make prints
> available early enough.
Fred, I have to say that regarding prints arriving
early for press screenings this often does very
little. We've had prints arrive early enough for press
screenings and usually only get one person to turn
out. It is most often the same person from the same
publication who is lukewarm to most experimental work
(though does at least write about it). He then passes
it off to his editor (the one I spoke of above) who
loathes experiemental work.
I'd much prefer doing press screenings of film prints.
As a volunteer-run exhibition space it makes the work
more managable. If we receive a press screener we then
have to dub multiple copies for anywhere from 4-6
press outlets and then personally deliver all those
those tapes to the press. I've had writers tell me
they did not receive a tape when I left it for them
exactly where they ask me to at the publication they
work for. Press screeners can be more convient for
writers and editors to ignore and much more work on
our end.
If all one had to do was schedule a press "screening"
of prints and have a group of writers show up well
then the (volunteer) job would be much easier. At
least the writer is getting paid (even if its only
$25). We don't make a dime from our labor.
I should also say that it's not completely bleak here
in Portland as we have found decent responses to a
good number of films and filmmakers. Much of this is
based on the persistence of the exhibitor. However, I
must reiterate that persistance most often works out
into a capsule review, and not a long listing which
translates into many hours of work for several column
inches of review space.
This is why I'd begged the question: Has the situation
been this way for the last 40 years? Was there more
interested writers (and well written articles) in
non-film publications in the past?
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>.