From: 40 Frames (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2007 - 17:46:31 PST
> Alain and Joost, I didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. I was
> addressing the relationship of the original charter to the current
> conditions of a-g cinema, and indicating my feeling, in response to
> citing of the original charter, that discussion of a-g cinema at this
> cannot really thrive, beyond discussion of film-specific aspects of
> particular works, in the environment that charter describes, however
> it might be from what occurs here. I never said anything about anyone
> censored or shut down. The first sentence, and the description of a
> video-forbidden forum, were hypotheticals, though I think they are
> to the current discussion, and if that wasn't clear I apologize.
> All of this in the context of the ongoing multithreaded discussion
> the current state of the forum.
> I will state, though, that I have always found it problematic to discuss
> non-sprocketed work here, as it usually ends up with this format-issue
> around it before any other substantive discussion takes place. As for
> lists for discussion of a-g cinema without the privileging of a
> format, I've looked for years and have yet to find one.
Though I'm certain it's obvious to anyone who has read my posts, I feel
strongly that format does matter despite the appeals by others to not make
such a big deal of the differences.
Format is tied to industry, to our environment, and to work practices,
etc. It's more than just film ou video to me. I don't see it in such an
abstract way. This is why for me *preservation* is means of continuing to
use film for making and exhibiting.
But of course you can, as you have, and as others have, discuss whatever
strikes your fancy.
425 SE 3rd, #400
Portland, OR 97214
+1 503 231 6548
Skype ID: frames40
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.