Jim,

It's not that people don't like what you're saying, just that your assumptions 
about course budgets seem to be outside the experience many people in academia 
have had. The issue is not with bowing to the "audience," but rather the 
extreme aversion by departments and colleges to allocating the sums of money 
that it would take to stock a semester's worth of screenings with rental 
prints. At $150 + shipping for a feature (a typical price from Swank) or a 
similar amount to put together 60+ minutes from Canyon, you're looking at 
making the choice between a one-time viewing each week for 15+ weeks or perhaps 
purchasing a new camera for the department. These decisions are rarely taken 
lightly, but they often fall on the side of technology.


One major difference in academia these days is a need to link expenditures to a 
cost-benefit, and frankly, it is difficult if not near impossible to place a 
concrete amount on viewing prints vs. viewing from DVD or other means. It 
doesn't matter that my student's often appreciate the look of 16mm when I can't 
place a dollar amount on it. Not to mention having to run around for 30-60 min 
before class just to ensure that a working projector is in the classroom. The 
difficulty has very little to do with MAKING student's watch 16mm, and 
significantly more to do with having the funding to rent prints and the 
equipment to properly show them.


Your analogy to student's interest in Victorian literature is apt, but the 
economic models are different. Many on this list (and many who have no interest 
in experimental work, too) make it our business to show work in our classes 
that students won't like, and may find arcane and difficult. But, students have 
to buy books for class (and may try to get by without doing so), but they don't 
pay "extra" for the films viewed in class. As an undergrad I paid a special fee 
for EVERY class I took in the Film Dept, and this was largely used to keep our 
equipment running and for renting & acquiring prints to view in class. I gladly 
paid these fees, and so did most of my classmates...but we felt we were getting 
something special. Now, these sorts of "differential tuition" fees are the 
norm, and a department will lose students if the charge fees that are too far 
out of line with the average. I suspect most professors don't try to keep these 
fees down solely to keep
 numbers up, but more so to keep the education they offer as affordable as 
possible.

And now I've gotten way off the topic of what can be done to help perpetuate a 
model of Experimental Cinema distribution...

-Jason Halprin

________________________________
From: "carli...@aol.com" <carli...@aol.com>
To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] What is to be done? was "canyon in the news"


In other words, you don't like what I'm saying.

Most of these topics don't require much verbiage. Film is worthy, and so we 
should keep film around. It's really pretty simple. 

If students don't like to view film prints, then the teachers should MAKE 
them. Having no money is one thing, but this idea that the student "audience" 
won't watch 16mm is very easy to counter.

Most literature students these days don't like to read Victorian 
three-deckers, either. So does that mean we pretend they don't exist, or 
eliminate them from consideration?
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks     
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Reply via email to