From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 27 2005 - 16:45:36 PDT
--- Adam Hyman <(address suppressed)> wrote:
> Well if everything is corrupt, then there is no
> purity/corruption
> distinction anymore; a false dichotomy made so we
> feel worse about the
> world, rather than accepting the complexities of the
> conditions we're in,
> and working to fix things that seem wrong.
>
i think that it is anthropocentric thinking
to see purity/corruption as
a human social construct only
we don't only conceptualize fr: ourselves
our conceptualizations are generally based in reality
like the real world -
ex. birds fly - we made planes -
just because everything houses corruption
it doesn't mean that it doesn't also house levels of
purity that we can't qualify/quantify and have
discourse about - and more - make change fr:
- it isn't logically played out the way you state -
- i watched "crash" last night
a great example of purity/corruption ?'s and
yes i agree it can be complex 2 try and figure out
the conditions
(within purity/corruption
ie who (or what)is what most) -
but i don't think the conditions themselves
are really that complex - more of common sense
(but there's a saying "common sense ain't so common")
i think we construct "complexity" as a screen/a ruse
SO that problems are NOT addressed
(we have seen examples of this here
on the list recently - it's nothing new)
there are numerous reasons for this desire
but i would say fear/uncomfortability is the largest
it is a long held cultural psychosis
-what do you think socrates was up against-
> I am always struck by how guests to Filmforum at
> our screenings in
> Hollywood, enjoy that we are screening "in the heart
> of Hollywood." It's
> nice that it gives everyone a thrill; it does to me
> as well. But at this
> point it doesn't really seem like an important
> distinction - there isn't
> such a clean separation between the two. Heck,
> every experimental filmmaker
> I know also likes more popular narrative features
> (well, not all of them,
> but at least few). And economically, many, if not
> most, of the people
> making experimental work in Southern California also
> work in the "industry."
> So does that make everyone here corrupt? I don't
> think so.
umn - don't think this is what i was addressing
i was talking about that the elite
do not give back to the community
it's the old IGMFY(i got mine f*ck you)
maya deren (+ others) worked to help support
the avant garde
beyond making the work (beyond the grave)
why can't these elite
i mean lucas and speilberg
yes speilberg has the shoah foundation (great) but...
is speilburg + "industrial light and magic"
doing pro bono work targeted at supporting the a.g.?
for that matter is scorsese
yes he recently 'supported' a.g. in his dylan piece
and 'we' are grateful
but i also see the work supported HIS piece -
i think he gives cash to support preservation
but i was talking about that i believe stan
could have been more supported in his lifetime
and would have benefited moreover
by the community of filmmaking doing so
(not to mention that the community of filmmaking would
have benefited moreover)
especially if the academy et al knew who he was
i don't think it is even on their radar
to support living a.g. filmmakers -
(we do have jerome foundation but not much more
specified ((right??)))-
maybe i am wrong
also i am not of the anti-cross pollination ilk -
the "'they' stole 'our' paper bag flying in the wind"
thinkers - (please! lets never talk about that again)
some of the best films are made IN
the hollywood system
miraculously the bean counters
(and tunnel vision others)
haven't succeeded in sucking the life out of
everything - but i will say that filmmakers like
jarmusch
almost never even want to think about raising money
to make the work through the hollywood system
- which creates a huge amount of biz. type crazy
labyrynth work for them
but they would rather pay THAT cost...
--- Adam Hyman <(address suppressed)> wrote:
> Kazan getting an Award has nothing to do with
> corruption, in my opinion. He
> was a complicated fellow who made great films and
> also betrayed people. The
> Academy, a conservative if liberal group of people,
> decided to honor the
> "important filmmaker" side of him.
and people are amazed to the extent that heroin
addicts compartmentalize THEIR lives
i would say he betrayed more than just "people"
i don't think he was complicated at all
i wonder what the families of the effected would/do
say
- it's not exactly like the act of a reclaimtion
project as in south africa -
but as i know really nothing of all the money's
allocation of the academy -
perhaps i am wrong and they are creating a
reclaimation
along side supporting the filmmaker kazan
but i would say it is probably more
in an individual way like with kirk douglas
c
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.