From: Donald Harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2008 - 13:43:41 PDT
Thanks Brook - well said. Even for people like myself who worked
there, I'm sure it could be debated as to what went wrong and I'm
sure some of that is not relevant or appropriate to air.
By providing so many services that people valued (classes, gear,
grants, library, exhibition, magazine, festival, and yes, networking
events), FAF became spread thin and then got stretched beyond
capacity when funding/membership started to drop right around the dot-
com bust. Most people within the organization found it difficult to
make the necessary cuts or figure out new approaches to maintain
sustainability (we were all committed to keeping film gear, but it
wasn't going to pay any bills). As a result the equation started to
go in the wrong direction, as FAF began asking filmmakers for support
more than it was offering support to them.
Again, it's a lot more complicated than just a few factors to
"blame." The bigger question is whether these organizations are truly
providing vital support services and, if yes, how they can get
sustainable funding without having to lose sight of their mission.
Perhaps it's time for a new grassroots model built around what
upcoming and established filmmakers need most in this post flatbed
On Aug 20, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Jim Carlile wrote:
> In a message dated 8/20/2008 6:58:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
> And no slag on secretaries, but archivists aren't secretaries. Like
> secretaries, though, we don't get much respect until someone needs
> Of course. I just don't understand the purpose of FAF if they're
> getting rid of the film equipment. These kind of re-organizations
> always end up turning into boutique spots for the dilettantes. I've
> seen it so many times.
> It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
> deal here.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.