From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 15:37:09 PDT
On 8/20/05 4:57 PM, "david tetzlaff" <email suppressed> wrote:
> I think James missed my point about 'not a lost film rental'. What I
> mean is, if a student group, department whatever can only count on
> five viewers showing up for something they are not going to rent a
> film. The only choice on that end is do nothing, or have an illegal
> showing.
No, you missed my point.
I've been to many poorly attended campus screenings where rentals were paid.
Heck, I've organized some of them. You're suggesting a false dilemma: the
choice is not illegal vs. nothing. The choice is whether or not to put the
time and effort into securing the resources for a rental. I think three
people showed up for a screening I organized of Snow's Region Centrale. I
got a student government event grant because I knew it would be worth the
effort. The question becomes, then, how can we teach students to understand
the value of such an effort? Well, we can't if we can't demonstrate that
our own such efforts have value.
Flat rental rates are set up that way precisely because neither the
distributor nor the exhibitor can guarantee any kind of turn out. The rate
is the same for 10 or 100 (though some distinguish a higher rental at some
point, say 500 in attendance). If you don't pay for a screening of 10, that
is still a lost rental.
> Again, it kind of misses the
> point to suggest that such folks could bootstrap themselves into real
> programming. They have other agendas, other time commitments.
Of course, assuming that people will always take the path of least
resistance at some point becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Now, if students came to me with the Vincent Chin idea, I would not assume
that only 5 students would show up. Like you, I would not have any major
objection to the lounge scenario that you suggested. But there are a lot of
ways students could take that idea into something more advanced without that
much more of a time commitment. Would I force them to pursue public
programming? No. But I would try to convince them of the value (and the
rewards) of doing a public screening properly, especially if there is a
target underserved campus audience associated with the film. Again, how can
we teach them the value of such an effort if we don't value it ourselves?
> Now those are reasonable sentiments and I agree 100%. But let us be
> honest and acknowledge the obstacles in the way, and the reaosns this
> does not happen. First, it's the rare school where folks in power
> have a strong investment in an arts series of any kind, and a rarer
> one still where moving image arts are considered legitimate art forms
> rather than 'entertainment'.
Again, I think you're underestimating things with a narrow definition of
power in this context.
That film history professor who should
> (we will agree) be trying to see her art form has a living presence
> on campus is facing the following situation: nothing she does to
> instigate a film series is likely to gain her any credit with her
> colleagues and is more likely to ruffle feathers. Already facing
> paranoia in a climate of ever-escalating pressure for publication,
> she retreats to the library to work on yet another book that the
> world probably doesn't need.
This could be me...we'll see how idealistic I am come tenure time.
> James has great plans for what he hopes the students can accomplish
> on their own, and I wish him the best of luck, but again I think we
> need to be realistic. Some campuses have a strong active presence of
> students interested in contemporary art and some do not. Our college
> has a moribund student film society that ocassionally brings in
> entertainment pictures (like "The Incredibles").
I assume that most of the first steps toward a more vibrant film culture in
Wilmington will involve entertainment. What's wrong with The Incredibles?
Especially as a starting point? Wouldn't empowering the students to bring
in films--whatever films they are--be better than assuming the worst about
their taste and their potential to contribute to the community?
> At the beginning of every new semester I give the students
> a speech about how they should take over the Film Society or create a
> new one and bring some good films to campus. They nod, and do
> nothing.
Well, why would they respond positively if it is clear that you don't
approve of the films that they (the students) are interested in?
Admittedly, I tend to be a bit of a Pollyanna when it comes to this topic,
but why is it that I think you're being pessimistic every time you use the
word "realistic"?
Of course we can't transform all students into active leaders in the local
film culture (we can't even get some students to see subtitled films). But
we don't need to. We only need a few. My general comments to my class on
Monday will produce absolutely nothing...most students will be tuned out
unless they think something might be on a test. They will nod, and do
nothing. But I'm also fully aware of the profound influence one can have on
a student if you show a personal interest in what they are interested in,
and there are fewer things more rewarding than transforming that enthusiasm
into something productive for the community. Somewhere down the road one of
those freshmen will ask me if I've seen a film, and I'll encourage them to
bring it in because it is within their power to do so. Maybe only three
people will show up, but that student will realize that three people saw a
film they otherwise would not have seen because of his/her efforts. Some
will give up at that point, but others will understand what they are capable
of doing, both on and off campus. Even if I get just one of those students
over the next few years, my optimism will be justified. Such optimism is
completely realistic.
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.