I think you have a parasite in your mind tim On Oct 10, 2015 2:26 AM, "Tim Halloran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >>>> [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
