It was just stupid, that's all. The author tries (but comes across as stupid), 
the editor who is responsible must be stupid, the publication is pretty stupid 
for printing it. A stupidathon, full circle – even without scrutinising bears, 
that's credibility in a non-return airmail package to Nowheresville.

It's a truly awful article - I don't think there's a single line that bears 
scrutiny. But what bothers be even more than the article itself is that The 
Independent chose someone to write an article on experimental film who has no 
discernible credentials, and then actually published the drivel that resulted. 
We can fault the (very young) author for not doing her homework, for offering a 
laundry list of platitudes about art, for parroting the party line on the 
glorious of the internet, and for a writing style more appropriate for a high 
school newspaper than a publication claiming to have been "obsessed with 
independent film since 1978." But there's some spark of enthusiasm for the 
subject matter, misguided and uninformed as it is. Her article shouldn't have 
ever seen the light of day, but for that we can only fault The Independent. 
Perhaps the line under the title is a veiled acknowledgement by the publishers 
of the article's shortcomings: "...her unique POV," and "an area of film that 
leans toward indecipherable" suggest that none of it should be taken too 

Taking the article apart would be too easy, and perhaps a little mean-spirited. 
But The Independent and the aivf should be called on the carpet for printing it.


On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Michael Betancourt 
<<>> wrote:
This article left me with that "you're joking" sense: it doesn't even get 
Sheldon Renan's name right (quote: Sheldon Ren, author of An Introduction to 
the American Underground 
 writes that the term came into usage because “there was at the time a feeling 
that the forces that be were trying to keep this certain kind of film from 
being made.") Problem is, people who don't know any better will read it and 
think they've learned something.....

But somehow I don't think objecting will actually do any good. (It's already in 

Michael Betancourt
Savannah, GA USA<><> |<><> | the avant-garde film & video 

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Beebe, Roger 
<<>> wrote:
I tried to post a comment to this article expressing my dissatisfaction about 
her very idiosyncratic lexicon, but it seems not to have taken.  The author 
goes on to say that Citizen Kane was avant garde, completely ignoring the 
historical usage of this term.  I don't understand why The Independent got 
someone to write this article who seems to have very little exposure to 
experimental film.  (She also seems to have mostly art-world references for 
exp. film, which is another problem after the more basic ones.)

Mass protest?

On Mar 4, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:

For me, experimental film is essentially a broad strokes or umbrella term for 
moving images that explore the human condition, nature, or fantasy in ways that 
haven’t been traditionally explored before. “Experimental film” includes a wide 
range of works, from a video performance of a heavily made-up woman smearing 
her face on a pane of glass (Pipilotti Rist,Be Nice to 
Me<>) to Wes Anderson’s Moonrise 

Chuck Kleinhans

FrameWorks mailing list<>

FrameWorks mailing list<>

FrameWorks mailing list<>

Jonathan Walley
Associate Professor
Department of Cinema
Denison University<>
FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to