Definitely. Tim
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 10, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Cari Machet <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
