From: Keith Sanborn (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 20:06:40 PDT
Dear Cari,
You are right about one thing, I did confuse you
with someone else and didn't realize it until
afterwards and it was mostly for the reason you
mentioned. But it was also that you positioned
yourself as an outsider, but that was more of a
posture than anything else. That posturing I was
right about. I didn't think you were a school
girl, but as several people have remarked,
clarity in expression is not always your strong
suit, nor is honesty. Basically, I don't feel
like I have any more time to spend on your public
persona and your personal insults disguised as
opinions about the ethics and aesthetics of film.
I always took your misspelling of Leslie's name
to be a deliberate cheapshot in your barrage of
jealous insults. For the record, you didn't meet
my wife. I'm not married to anyone.
Best wishes,
Keith
>dear keith -
>
>you posting as you do
>not referencing anything
>that was actually written down is suspect to me
>and i am affraid to ur detriment
>because you seem to get a little or alot lost
>not to be rude to you or nothin'
>
>ur assumption that i am fr: out of town is "wrong"
>-
>and is probably based in that i wrote to lesslie
>" not everyone can just bop down to milinium"
>-
>as if it was somehow only possible
>for me to be concerned for ME being there and not
>OTHERS
>which = where i was coming fr:
>-
>i live in nyc
>and have for alot of years
>i went to grad school and part of undergrad here so...
>and i have seen you at screenings throughout the years
>and
>met ur wife
>hung out with her even
>more than once so...
>
>my problem with lincoln center is what i said it is -
>i also saw there that year
>a piece that was done by wooster group
>which had the actor in black face
>talking old southern "black"
>it sucked
>for more reasons than the obvious ones
>really bad tech.
>i can be down with lo-fi but i have a limit
>- another hint of elitist crap -
>so cause it's the wooster group
>it isn't just bad tech
>it's wooster group bad tech
>and that's then hi-tech -
>my problems with the elite run deeper than my film
>(that i didn't submit)
>not getting in to the big lincoln center show
>i am not interested in being an art star
>i know i am supposed to be but...
>i am more interested in art
>and art like clarence schmidt art
>-mostly him seeing his house burn
>and saying it was the most beautiful thing he ever saw
>-
>and as robert smithson said
>- (paraphrasing) the art objects that i physically
>make
>pale in comparison to the optical art i do inside
>myself -
>my optical experiences-
>
>that the academy awards
>w/ out having an academy award
>for experimental film
>- to my knowledge anyway -
>had the audacity to co-opt
>Stan Brakhage by naming him
>among their industry dead of the year is repulsive
>at first i was like oh!
>then i was like ohˇ
>that they would claim him as theirs
>when scorsese is the only one (i know of)
>that is in anyway knowledgable or supportive
>of the avant garde
>"puke" (ala owen)
>
>what is interesting to me keith
>about what you post
>is that it is inlaid with this whole world
>that you have made up
>you wrote several sentences to me
>as if i was actually from out of town
>
>i am not some stupid schoolgirl
>that's going to eat the shit
>that you plopped on my plate and smile
>-
>i apologize in advance
>to the delicate flowers on the list
>for my "presentation"
>-
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> I'm not a huge
>> fan of that venue either, or what it enthrones, or
>> seems to, to those
>> coming in from the outside. The problem is: it's a
>> local screening
>> venue, but if you come in from out of town and New
>> York is screaming
>> at you: you are nothing!!! AND you believe the hype,
>> you over-react.
>> I think you over-reacted to the context. Terror
>> turns to righteous
>> indignation; the emperor's new clothes syndrome.
>
>let's talk about leveling a serious critique as you
>stated
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>It would still be good to use your head in your
> > critique. It
> > would help, in leveling a serious critique. We can't
>> read your mind
>> and I won't credit anyone's mere assertions. Yes,
>> you did blurt.
>> Racism is not just a charge to spout when you feel
>> left out.
>
>(i am using zev's post to support my text here)
>
>--- Zev Robinson <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>There seems to be an AG flim of which there is a
>> critique that it is indistinguishable from that
>> which it is criticizing. Which is a valid criticism
>> in general, but I can't judge cos I havent seen it.
>
>your premise here,
>as i assume you were using your head
>as you told me i needed to do (sarcasm),
>your story is that i am an outsider fr: out of town
>(this is becoming a western)
>and i am jellous of lesslie
>and intimidated by lincoln center
>because i submited a film and it didn't get in
>so when i saw a post on frameworks
>some several years later
>about "compisition in red and yellow"
>and supported the argument of the poster
>which again
>
>--- Zev Robinson <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>There seems to be an AG flim of which there is a
>> critique that it is indistinguishable from that
>> which it is criticizing.
>
>(actually there were 2 films that were critiqued as
>such
>"compisition in red and yellow" +
>"another worldy")
>
>i only did so out of a jellous rage
>that was blurted
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> Yes,
>> you did blurt.
>> Racism is not just a charge to spout when you feel
>> left out
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Word Definition
>
>blurt fr: ask jeeves
>
>verb: utter impulsively
>
>impulsive:
>
>Acting momentarily, or by impulse; not continuous; --
>said of forces.
>
>A sudden, unexpected movement; a sudden and capricious
>impulse; a sally; as, ... Going, Handle, Horse,
>Impulse, In, Inclined, Into, Invent, Its, Journey, ...
>----
>i so much would never catagorize my writting as
>blurting
>ever ever
>ur's maybe but not mine
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>because i felt left out (left felt)
>on acounta because????
>oh yeay i am fr: out of town and
>my film didn't get in the "big show"
>some many years ago
>
>now i know just like everybody that tons a bad shit
>has gone down that is motivated by jellousy
>but this crazy thing that i did
>questioning whether "another worldly"
>
>--- Zev Robinson <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> is indistinguishable from that
>> which it is criticizing.
>
>is not motivated by jellousy
>
>the crazy thing that i questioned
>is motivated by the truth and gettin at it
>which i have repeated over and over
>
>the truth is
>i ain'ta fr: outa town
>i didn't submit a film
>i ain't a cowboy protaginist
>- cowboy's don't really reside in missouri where i am
>fr: -
>without ur "facts"
>where is ur argument???
>
>marylin called you on the carpet
>you went for the jugular and talked about stan
>(sad)
>i don't think i am off in any way there
>it is possible but...
>smoke and mirrors
>smoke and mirrors
>the best defence is a good offence
>bravo
>offensive lineman
>GO TEAM!!
>
>--- Marilyn Brakhage <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> . . . I agree
>> with you that Cari's post got too personally
>> insulting (in her
>> description of Leslie Thornton at her screening).
>> However, what she
>> actually said about the work was that "the film does
>> not work for me as
>> a viewer, to me she exploits people of color." She
>> further referred to
>> the film as "insensitive" and "unethical" and then
>> wrote: "Please tell
>> me how this film is NOT what it supposedly
>> critiques?" Only later did
>> she re-word this question as, "What I was proposing
>> was that Leslie
>> Thornton's film is inherently racist/classist and I
>> asked how is it
>> not? just the question of the viewer of Composition
>> in Red and
>> Yellow." . . . I think that although Cari's style
>> of writing was also
>> insensitive at times, her question -- in the context
>> of the original
>> discussion about the film, "Composition in Red and
>> Yellow" -- seemed
>> perfectly valid. She was asking how a film manages
>> not to become what
>> it critiques. She felt that Thornton's film did not
>> succeed in this
>> respect. She was ASKING for someone to tell her, if
>> they could, how it
> > was not inherently what it was critiquing. And what
> > I thought was
>> lacking in the discussion was a real answer to that
>> question.
>
>i have admited that i am a big ugly monster schmo
>(dick in yiddish)
>because i was rude, hatefull, childish, violent
>in stating several things about lesslie
>and had alot of "bad form" in posting to lili
>and i am pretty sure i apologized
>and am willing to apologize more
>why can't you address the question at hand
>instead of staying back in the past
>that we have learned fr: and moved beyond?
>
>why? - as owen asked
>why can't keith sanborn address the problem
>- and i place it here for the millionth time -
>
>--- Zev Robinson <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>There seems to be an AG flim of which there is a
>> critique that it is indistinguishable from that
>> which it is criticizing. Which is a valid criticism
>> in general,
>
>what is your huge investment in this?
>what is your motive
>what do you get out of remaining in the problem?
>and making up a story about me being
>- a cowboy out of towner
>blowin into the big city
>("midnight cowboy" then?)
>being fear based and flying into a rage -
>oh the stories we tell (ourselves)
>next thing i know you'll be sayin'
>-
>hal ashby
>really didn't know anything about making films
>or art
>cause he fried his brains with drugs
>and looked like a circus freak
>and that is well proven cause
>"harold and maude" was pulled fr: the box office only
>a week
>after it's release
>cause the critics canned it
>and they are really smart
>-
>aaaahhhh!!!!! the sickening stench of elitism
>
>i think ur motivation in making me into
>an outsider protagonist
>in ur story
>is perfectly alligned with my critique of elitism
>and i think ur apparent protection of the film
>"another worldly"
>- seen thru disregarding the question and moving
>around it
>so hugely many times -
>totally puts into play ur role in that elitism
>as a part
>as a player
>
>--- Marilyn Brakhage <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>And again, I was
>>definitely never trying to critique Leslie's film.
>(How could I?) I
>>was trying to ask people who had seen it, to give
>further >explanation.
>
>>But you're right. No need to say anything more until
>we've seen >it.
>
>i hope that marylin after seeing the film
>comes back to the table
>she doesn't seem to me to be a player at all
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> really missed the point of what I was trying to
>> say--not to mention
>> Leslie--
>
>can you please clarify
>what did lesslie say????
>in a post????
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>>
>> And for the record "bad form" is your phrase, not
>> mine.
>
>actually it is anna biller's
>that is why i put it in quotes
>
>--- Keith Sanborn <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>>I think you
>> know I don't really care very much about "good or
>> bad" form or
>> anything else. Ironically, our opinions are probably
>> closer than you
>> imagine. Our means of presentation are not. And the
>> gender issue is
>> just as low a blow as your original racism and class
>> enemy charge.
>
>a hilarious use of "low blow" here
>- low + blow -
>get it
>lol
>
>you obviously didn't read my gender post
>and comprehend it
>and i was posting it re: that others often question
>gender roles on this list and did in this thread
>and i was saying that woman need to hold up the mirror
>to their own actions so...
>what the hell are you talking about??
>
>"enemy" is used here too, interesting
>don't think i have heard that before
>"class enemy"
>or is it "race and class enemy"
>dissapointing weird shit - makes no sence at all
>
>c
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.