Re: CVM CALL FOR WORK: Abstract and Experimental Moving Images

From: James Macgillivray (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2006 - 11:24:25 PDT

Does anyone think that they will just take an effect and rip it off with a
higher production budget?

I'm just wondering because people do this in my field (architecture) all the
time, and I don't think it's unprecedented to do it in experimental film.

The longer, more time consuming way to cull the experimental film scene for
new ideas would be to go to all the festivals in a given year. However in
that case, the theme of the films would not be pre-disposed to the theme of
said feature film and they'd have to see a lot of things unnecessarily. In a
sense they're asking us to curate a little film festival for the subject of
their film. Sure, I don't doubt that they'll credit the people whose films
they actually use, but there's nothing to stop them from taking the "look"
of a film that didn't make the cut.

I was excited to send them all my half finished films that I don't see going
anywhere (but that still have original techniques in them). And I still
might, but this looks a little like a venus fly trap to me. And I don't mean
to show any ill will towards CVM; chances are this whole thing is far more
ethically defensible than most of the things I do as an architect every day.


>From: Cari Machet <email suppressed>
>Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>To: email suppressed
>Subject: Re: CVM CALL FOR WORK: Abstract and Experimental Moving Images
>Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:31:59 -0400
>how is you all's sense of ownership any different than 'theirs'?
>(commodification = commodification - reductively)
>recommended reading "the gift" by lewis hyde
>i cannot believe the damn bag was mentioned again
>context is not "everything"
>it is something but...
>i for one think it is much more damaging
>the activity of universities in our culture - than that of hollowood
>the lie that education is actually occurring - let alone fully
>(talk about commodity production)
>this is profoundly more unethical
>and not dissimular to the lie of the evening news
>ps if it is mallick to me he seems 2 have some artistic integrity - at
>based in the content of his work
>and that he doesn't crank films out every 10 seconds 2 make $
>On 10/2/06, Jeff Kreines <email suppressed> wrote:
>>On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:07 AM, gyoungblood wrote:
>>Malick implied he wanted a collaboration, not just clips from existing
>>work, but I figured that was bullshit.
>>Perhaps this is the film? With Mel Gibson and Colin Farrell?
>>__________________________________________________________________ For
>>info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.