Re: [Frameworks] media in the classroom

From: mat fleming (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Oct 18 2010 - 09:38:56 PDT

I still think my Idea of showing the films in an existing screening
room/cinema rocks. It significantly contributes to solving the 3 barriers
you identify with much less hassle and expense.

1. the cost of rentals is shared with the - admittedly small but not
insignificant and growing - public who are happy come to the cinema and pay
to see something far out and interesting.
2. The cinema has projection equipment, expertise and routines for recieving
and dispatching prints.
3. As far as needing a digi copy to go through a film in detail I think
that's fine for academic scrutiny (and screeners aren't usually difficult to
get hold of) but I think it's also healthy to give time for a emotional
responce in the cinema first.

To make it happen teachers need only go to their local independent cinema
and say "I'll give you what I can afford and bring a class of students in on
a quiet weeknight. I'll help you promote the screening with a bit of
photocopying and campus wallspace. Can we come to an arrangement for a
monthly experimental show?" I'm ready to bet you'd get a really positive

I'd be interested to hear from teachers what the difficulty in this solution
is. In the UK universities are given bonus points for having an impact
outside of the campus but i havn't managed to make an arrangement like this

I did a film module on an otherwsie unrelated course at uni and it baffles
me now when I think I was seeing all these films on vhs wearing headphones
in a basement on a a sunny afternoon. I remember few of those films but the
films I saw at the student film society and in cinemas in town at that time
form what I now consider my film education.


On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM, David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:

> OK, let's say we all agree it would be great if college and university
> classes could screen more experimental film from actual film prints.
> Then let us ask what it would take for that to happen. Three problems
> I've identified and others have confirmed would need to be addressed.
> 1. The cost of print rentals is too high for current academic budgets.
> 2. There is no support for 16mm projection.
> 3. Print rental is not an effective means of facilitating scholarly
> engagement.
> How might we change these things.
> 1. Fees. The distribution would have to be subsidized by governmental
> arts agencies, private foundations, etc.
> 2. The distributors could no longer see their role as merely supplying
> prints, but would need to offer a complete 16mm projection service.
> They would need to maintain an inventory of quality 16mm projectors
> and a wide selection of lenses, employ projector technicians, and
> develop programs to train new people in that craft.
> 3. Print rental would need to be accompanied /supplemented by digital
> copies that can be studied in a library or on an Blackboard-type system.
> That is, whenever a school wished to offer an experimental film class
> with 'real film', they would pay one modest comprehensive fee for
> which they would receive a.) a package of rental prints, b.) rental of
> a freshly serviced 16mm projector or two for the term, fitted with the
> proper lenses for the screen size and throw of the screening room to
> be used. c.) rental for the term of a tape splicer and tape to repair
> damaged prints d.) some sort of video training course in the operation
> of the equipment, care of the prints, and use of the splicer to repair
> broken films. e.) rental, again for the term, of digital copies for
> study after the prints have been screened (to be returned/deleted at
> the end of the course).
> I am well aware that the coops as now constituted have nowhere near
> the resources available to do something like that. What would be
> required, it seems to me, is for Canyon, FMC and MoMo to combine
> operations into some Center For The Personal Film, so there would be a
> single source for all the schools to deal with, a single target for
> all fund-raising and support, a stronger focus point of advocacy. Yes,
> this would be a total change from the independence the coops have now,
> and would not come without certain losses.
> But the reality is that the market for conventional 16mm rental is
> going away, and is already functionally dead in most corners of
> academia. And the only alternative I can think of for the distributor
> is some form of patronage or subsidy. One would start, I suppose by
> getting George Lucas to put up or shut up about his love for Lipsett
> and his self-identification as an experimental filmmaker (and to begin
> to atone for his cinematic sins). If the new organization was called
> the George Lucas Center For Experimental Film, I'd grimace every time
> I encountered the title, but I'd live with it. Scorcese, Coppola,
> DePalma and others are known to appreciate experimental work, and
> while they may not have Lucas's money, they have influence. If all the
> little stakes-holders in 16mm and experimental joined hands and worked
> together, they might be able to accomplish something. Continuing to
> operate in the fragmented manner they do now offers little hope for
> the future. Franklin: "We must all hang together, or surely we will
> all hang separately." Dylan: "Your sons and your daughters are beyond
> your command / Your old road is rapidly agin'/
> Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand / For the
> times they are a-changin'."
> Is there an organizer in the house?
> (Before you lay smack negativity of my little plan, realize that I've
> anticipated a lot of it, and think it through OK? Try to make a better
> scheme, not just trash this'un.)
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed

FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed