From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 18:33:52 PDT
Well, I shouldn't nitpick, since it is called an "attempted summary" but...
>
> What then might be the solution to the problem?
> 1) Dominic, Scott and James appear to argue that there is no
> structural fault with the current system, that all can be made well
> if individuals, especially educators, would just do their duty and
> commission/encourage film rentals.
Now come on. I think that all three have mentioned plenty of problems with
the current system. Also, I think you missed my point in the DIY tangent
with Konrad. I tried to suggest that there actually might be not one but
two problems with the current system...one having to do with older films,
the other having to do with more recent films. Suggesting the same solution
(DVD) to what might very well be different problems is in itself a problem.
Regarding more recent work, I suggested that the DIY model is the most
likely for the future (and I reassured the future of dark rooms with like
minded people in them, no matter what technology is used).
> 2) Konrad, Joel and others suggest the coops move into a DIY model of
> democratized low-cost DVD (or whatever) distribution. Inevitably they
> hold the content of the work more important than the form of the
> medium (and yes i know the two can't truly be separated, but it's a
> useful heuristic distinction).
I'd have to go over the posts again, but I'm not sure if the #2 position
necessarily means that the #2's are against the #1 position regarding paying
for film rentals. At least one variation (Konrad's, as I recall) suggested
a way to channel some of the income into print preservation and access.
That does not necessarily mean that he's against the idea that educators
should secure funds to rent those prints.
> Of these, number one is IMHO a total non-starter. Nothing much has
> ever gotten done by moralizing appeals to individuals (anyone
> remember Bush 41's 'Thousand Points of Light'?).
First of all, I don't know where you are, but a heck of a lot of scary
things got accomplished after that, so I'm not sure if your point holds.
For one thing, most
> film scholars (especially younger ones) just don't agree with the
> notion that film-must-be-seen-as-film-and-not-on-video. If they're
> interested in Anger, for example it's a kind of Suarez queer-theory
> angle about the content of Scorpio Rising that comes through as well
> on a crappy VHS tape as on a nice print, and not in the Wees
> formalist take on the play of light in the water streams in Eaux
> d'Artifice.
Well here I'd actually agree with you about interest in film as film. I
think in a thread long ago I suggested that went to an Society of Cinema and
Media Studies conference with a 16mm projector and asked people to thread
it, only a very small percentage could probably do so. Heck, one could
argue that you don't even need the VHS tape of a film to accompany certain
scholarly writing, since it has so little to do with the film/video itself
in any real way.
But the prominence of this attitude does not make it the best position for
film educators to have. Nor does it make sense to advocate for that
position just because it is prevalent. If you want to advocate the position
because you think it is the best way to approach film and film history, I'm
all ears. Aside from the DVD/distribution issues in this thread, one could
discuss whether that is the best position to take. Of course, that has all
been discussed before.
> (And can we please please get past this notion that distributors
> somehow have the right to specify that 'home video' releases cannot
> be used in the classroom, since U.S. Federal Law, Title 17, chapter
> 1, section 110, paragraph 1 explicitly states that they can?)
James Peterson, who wrote on experimental film (Dreams of Chaos, Visions of
Order), and subsequently became a lawyer, once gave a talk on this. I can't
recall the details, but I will try to contact him because I seem to recall
that he took the position that you can't use them in the classroom--do you
have an easy link to that paragraph? (I know it's online somewhere).
One thing that I keep forgetting to mention is that DVD is a terrible
exhibition format. I like DVDs, I own quite a few of them. I always note
the DVD releases mentioned on this list, for myself and for my colleagues
who are not on this list. I'd like to see a lot more contemporary work on
DVD, and older work too. But I'm not sure I'm crazy about DVD as a larger
audience exhibition format.
Matt McCormick has come up in the discussion a few times. When he came to
Madison, he came with his box of DVDs--he gave me one title, and I bought
two additional titles. He gave two screening/talks that day. The first one
he showed on DV. It looked great. The second one, at Starlight Cinema, he
didn't realize that he would only have access to a DVD player. He suggested
to the Starlight Cinema folks that DVD is not the best exhibition format.
I saw most of the same work in the second event, and the difference was like
night and day. So for part of this we should set aside the film vs. video
mumbo jumbo and also talk about DVD on a TV screen vs. DVD projected on a
screen.
> Whatever we do, we shall have to organize and work together. So yes
> James I have mostly (very well earned) pessimism about what any of us
> can achieve as isolated individuals, but i remain hopeful that if we
> can put our heads together we can forge 'a better tomorrow.'
I'm not quite sure why you seem to think one suggestion is working together
while the other involves only isolated individuals. The only way any plan
is going to work is if people work together for a common goal.
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.