From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Oct 16 2005 - 14:32:51 PDT
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>.