Lol. Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Cari Machet <[email protected]> wrote: > > Its not meant as funny ... you must be american ... i am anti feminist > because it divides us - i have had too many strange experiences with > exclusionary females that are hierarichical which is patriarchal ... they > have no idea they are replicating the oppressors model maybe but ignorance is > an excuse that takes people only so far > > i am also anti-agist anti-speciesist anti-fascist > > More notes on distribution after deadman jarmusch refuses to ask american > producers for funding and that had a lot to do with distribution problems - > su freidricks said that she would rather have 10 people watch her films and > underwtand them than millions of people that dont > > Distribution/production is even psychotic for the highest paid like speilberg > and one flew over the coockoos nest took 10 years before getting funding its > a super fucked up section of society > >> On Oct 9, 2015 7:50 PM, "Tim Halloran" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "Anti-feminist." Lol. >> >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Cari Machet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Even though she may have thought of herself on the level of wim and not >>> gotten proper vast distribution as was stated she was female and though i >>> am anti-feminist this glaring factor remains a wall >>> >>> I cant help thinking of chris marker and his distribution >>> >>> My beautiful friend has made a website others may have an interest in > >>> monoskop.org >>> >>> On there is a series made by chris marker entitled 'the owl's legacy' which >>> was not distributed >>> >>> Monoskop.org/Chris_Marker >>> >>> In honor of chantel maybe people can be more aware when they do get to view >>> an artists work (that moves away from the oppressors hand) that the ease of >>> distribution is maybe too rare and we can all maybe help to shift that >>> >>>> On Oct 9, 2015 4:00 PM, "Cari Machet" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Just use a proxy server - a VPN ... shop online for one you like >>>> >>>>> On Oct 9, 2015 9:24 AM, "Jana Debus" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Well, the most wonderful thing would be for all of her films to be >>>>> projected and for all of us to gather for the occasion. >>>>> I guess Brussels would be the perfect place. (I am far away from Brussels >>>>> now…in San Francisco, and feel even further away during this sad time.) >>>>> >>>>> I hope it will be done, and for everyone to make an effort to be there. >>>>> >>>>> Jana >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 08.10.2015, at 23:17, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Same problem with the Hollis Frampton DVDs. Quiet annoying. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nicky. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Adam Hyman <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <[email protected]> >>>>>> <[email protected]>; JANA DEBUS <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 6:36 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Chantal Akerman died/reception >>>>>> >>>>>> Criterion is a US company that mostly licenses films only for US home >>>>>> video distribution, and internet streaming. However, it is more likely >>>>>> than not that they don’t have the rights to make it available for >>>>>> streaming to people outside the United States. Those rights would be >>>>>> held whatever company distributes her films in each country in question. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/8/15 10:21 PM, "Jana Debus" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am sorry to hear that! >>>>>> I wonder whether Criterion could do something about that… >>>>>> maybe worth it contacting them tomorrow. >>>>>> I’ll try. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08.10.2015, at 22:18, Peter Mudie <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yep, they can only be viewed in the U.S. (which is a bit tough on >>>>>> everyone in Belgium, or anywhere else for that matter). >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: FrameWorks <[email protected]> on behalf of >>>>>> Jana Debus <[email protected]> >>>>>> Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> Date: Friday, 9 October 2015 1:12 pm >>>>>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <[email protected]>, >>>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Chantal Akerman died/reception >>>>>> >>>>>> oh, shame, did you try the other link, I sent? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.hulu.com/search?q=chantal+akerman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08.10.2015, at 22:09, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Only if you live in the USA, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nicky. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Jana Debus <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 5:14 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Chantal Akerman died/reception >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Criterion has made Chantal Akerman’s films available online, >>>>>> you can watch them for free at this time of mourning, >>>>>> and be close to her, through her work. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, have you ever heard her reading “A family in brussels”? >>>>>> it’s beautiful, she was such a gifted writer, too. >>>>>> It’s on CD. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.criterion.com/explore/151-chantal-akerman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jana >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08.10.2015, at 20:20, Elizabeth McMahon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot speak for Film maker's Cooperative or Canyon, but The New York >>>>>> Public Library has a 16mm print of "Jeanne Dielman" for those who are >>>>>> close by, or otherwise interested in seeing it on film. It was >>>>>> distributed at the time of acquisition by New Yorker, so it did indeed >>>>>> have a stateside distributor, and one with quite a distinguished >>>>>> reputation. If you are interested in screening it on site, please call >>>>>> ahead to arrange the time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Elizabeth McMahon >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Chuck Kleinhans >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> I appreciate Gene Youngblood’s observations. I would point out in >>>>>> addition some of the decisions Akerman made which shaped the reception >>>>>> of her work. >>>>>> >>>>>> First, and I think incredibly importantly, was her choice of Babette >>>>>> Mongolte to be her cinematographer on Jeanne Dielman. Mongolte had >>>>>> already done the camerawork on Rainer’s Lives of Performers and Film >>>>>> About a Woman Who. Seeing those works as connected by visual >>>>>> sensibility gives the works at least a second “authorship” in the >>>>>> cinematographer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, Jeanne Dielman arrived in 1975-6. It was screened at some film >>>>>> centers and then the print left the country. Yeet during its brief >>>>>> appearance it inspired almost all the emerging feminist film makers, >>>>>> critics, scholars, teachers, and intellectuals to rave about it. And >>>>>> the writers wrote about it with a strong femiist analysis >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this was due to at least two factors, One was that feminist film >>>>>> criticism was looking for new work that escaped the Hollywood >>>>>> expectations. Remember this is the exact moment when Laura Mulvey’s >>>>>> landmark essay on "Visual Pleasure and Narrative CInema" hit the scene. >>>>>> Jeanne Dielman was the perfect film to see after or before reading >>>>>> Mulvey.. This was also the time of emerging feminist film festivals, >>>>>> feminist film courses in colleges and universities, feminist film >>>>>> programming being a regular part of film center programming, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, there was at that time a certain momentum in the women’s >>>>>> movement for thinking anew about housework and domestic space. In the >>>>>> UK one high profile group of feminists led a campaign for “Wages for >>>>>> Housework”—demanding recognition of women’s unpaid labor. In N. America >>>>>> there was an active discussion of the “double day” and women working >>>>>> outside the home but also then being totally responsible for domestic >>>>>> chores, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. So within the political wing of >>>>>> the women’s movement there was interest in this and Jeanne Dielman, >>>>>> although in one sense one of the “least likely” films to appeal to >>>>>> feminist activists unfamiliar with art film narrative in fact when they >>>>>> did get to see the film found it often intriguing and made them rethink >>>>>> what feminist film might be. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as I said, that rare print disappeared from N. America and Akermann >>>>>> essentially rejected the genuine enthusiastic audience for her film and >>>>>> wasn’t interested in having it placed with some logical upstart feminist >>>>>> film distributors nor was she willing to deposit a copy with the NY Coop >>>>>> or Canyon, which would have at least kept it alive for those who wanted >>>>>> to show it. I never heard the story from her side of why she made this >>>>>> decision. The gossip I heard was that she had a very high opinion of >>>>>> herself and wanted to be treated as a Major European Film Artist like >>>>>> Wenders or Fassbinder. She was holding out for Big Time art film >>>>>> distribution in N. America. And that never happened. >>>>>> >>>>>> There’s an excellent (if kind of lopsided by her enthusiasms) >>>>>> presentation of that Ackerman moment in Ruby Rich’s book Chick Flicks: >>>>>> Theories and Memories of the Feminist Film Movement. >>>>>> >>>>>> The point being that artists have some role to play in their own >>>>>> reputation/success and some decisions end up shaping their critical >>>>>> horizon and artistic capital. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Gene Youngblood <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless I’m mistaken, the American premiere of Jeanne Dielmann was at >>>>>> Filmex in 1976. That’s the Los Angeles International Film Exposition, >>>>>> which was the largest festival in the world at that time except for >>>>>> Cannes, which we considered to be a market, not a festival. I saw it >>>>>> twice, first on the selection committee, then at the festival, where it >>>>>> impressed me even more the second time. I met Chantal for lunch >>>>>> immediately after, somewhat disoriented that such a reserved, shy little >>>>>> person could have made this work of monumental intelligence and power. >>>>>> She was with Lloyd Cohn, whose fledgling company, World Artists (I think >>>>>> that’s the name), was the American distributor of the film. I met Lloyd >>>>>> ten years earlier when he was doing publicity for Monte Hellman’s >>>>>> remarkable westerns, The Shooting and Ride In the Whirlwind, which I >>>>>> reviewed in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. The review attracted a >>>>>> considerable audience for the films (Cameron Mitchell took out a full >>>>>> page ad in Variety to thank me and Jack Nicholson, who wrote, >>>>>> co-produced and starred in both), and because of that Lloyd was “loyal” >>>>>> to me over the years, which is how I ended up having lunch with him and >>>>>> Chantal Akerman. Lloyd was a small person too, about the same height as >>>>>> Chantal, and I remember feeling conspicuous, being more than a foot >>>>>> taller than them, as we entered the restaurant. I don’t remember much of >>>>>> the conversation except about Godard and Michael Snow, and how >>>>>> perceptive Chantal’s observations were. (As an aside, I prefer her “One >>>>>> Day Pina Asked…” over Wim Wenders’ piece on Bausch). I’m not sure about >>>>>> this, but I think Lloyd Cohn distributed some of Chantal’s experimental >>>>>> shorts for a brief period of time, and maybe The Meetings of Anna, and >>>>>> then I lost track of him. I showed Jeanne Dielmann, The Meetings of >>>>>> Anna, Hotel Monterey, Je tu il elle, and I’m Hungry I’m Cold in various >>>>>> classes every year for about 20 years, first at Calarts, then the >>>>>> College of Santa Fe. There were always lively discussions, and a handful >>>>>> of students invariably wrote term papers on Jeanne Dielmann or Meetings >>>>>> of Anna or both. Chantal affected me as profoundly as she did many >>>>>> others, maybe even a few of my students. By the way, if anyone knows >>>>>> what Lloyd Cohn is doing these days, please contact me off list. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chuck Kleinhans >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> FrameWorks mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
