> Maybe we should start throwing out all those silly old books, too.
Just FYI they are throwing out "the silly old boks, too."
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
From: "Fred Camper"
Subject:
> Lately I am part time and
"junior" at a strongly "tuition-driven"
> school in which avant-garde film
is certainly not the focus. So I don't show a
> lot of that. But I have
found that if you intelligently and passionately make
> the case to students
for, for example
Zimmermann
>To: Experimental Film Discussion List ;
>f...@fredcamper.com
>Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:26 AM
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
>
>
>A small point along the lines of political economy, as per David:
>
>The decline of cin
riginal Message-
From: Patricia R. Zimmermann
To: Experimental Film Discussion List ;
f...@fredcamper.com
Sent: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 5:26
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
A small point along the lines of political economy, as per David:
The decline of cinema on cellu
> If academics can save a bunch of old books together and call it a research
> library, then why can't they save a bunch of old films for distribution
> purposes? Who else is going to care?
>
> Maybe we should start throwing out all those silly old books,
> too.
Maintaining a film collection, and
In a message dated 2/19/2012 9:28:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pa...@ithaca.edu writes:
>So far, all we have is the same-old same-old line: the co-ops are in
trouble and its up to the academics to save them by ponying up more money.
That
is not going to work. Not even close. That's the
tzlaff
>)
>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
>To: f...@fredcamper.com,Experimental Film Discussion List
>
>
>> There are people who try to show film on film and can't, and
>> there are some who succeed.
>
>I did show film on film, not
> There are people who try to show film on film and can't, and
> there are some who succeed.
I did show film on film, not exclusively, but to the best I could manage.
> But even when you can't, you can talk about
> how the film shown on film actually looks,
Of course, I did that.
> and recommen
This is a point that concerns me on a daily
basis, as a publisher of video reproductions of
avant-garde films.
It is essential to see the films on film. It is
not enough that a reproduction looks good, or
looks like the original. What is important is not
what it looks like, but what it IS.
W
: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
I think David's point about identifying value is very important.
Something I have always wondered is whether this level of debate concerning
format and viewing exisits in other genres or other art forms. D
012 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
Matt,
As an outsider and hybrid filmmaker I find your point regarding value
identification spot on. I was not aware that it is so cheap to rent a print of
let's say a Brakage piece.
I believe that the "democratic
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
I don't think it can be stated any better than this.
Tim
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:15:12 -0600
> From: f...@fredcamper.com
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news
Matt,
As an outsider and hybrid filmmaker I find your point regarding value
identification spot on. I was not aware that it is so cheap to rent a print
of let's say a Brakage piece.
I believe that the "democratic" dissemination of avant-garde film works is
over ...especially at these rental price
I think David's point about identifying value is very important.
Something I have always wondered is whether this level of debate concerning
format and viewing exisits in other genres or other art forms. Do art
history teachers and students limit their study only to paintings and
sculptures to wh
I don't think it can be stated any better than this.
Tim
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:15:12 -0600
> From: f...@fredcamper.com
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
>
> David,
>
> Your post com
David,
Your post come in just after I posted mine.
I'm sorry about your troubles. As I suggested earlier, everyone's
situation is different, and everyone is different. Maybe you had a
particularly bad situation. Maybe there were other reasons for your
troubles. There are people who try to show fi
Tim Halloran wrote:
> Relax. While you do make some relevant points, it's not quite as bad as
> that for junior faculty. Everything requires a bit of political finesse
> but you do have some rights and can get what you need if you play your
> cards right. And I do know what I'm talking about as I
> At the risk of bringing up an old issue here, I am disturbed that nowhere in
> the debate is it mentioned that there is a unique aesthetic value, for many
> films, to presenting them as originally intended, on film.
Not true because we haven't even had a debate. I posited that we are in a
mom
t: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
The consortium sounds like a good idea. Focus on uni.'s and cinemas etc, that
already rent from canyon first, then try to expand to unis that may not print
budgets, then unis that may not have proper projectors, and so on.
Perhaps make the lib
Relax. While you do make some relevant points, it's not quite as bad as that
for junior faculty. Everything requires a bit of political finesse but you do
have some rights and can get what you need if you play your cards right. And I
do know what I'm talking about as I am one of them.
Tim
Sent
In a message dated 2/19/2012 1:39:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, djtet53@
gmail.com writes:
Who do you think? The upper-class family paying $60K a year to put their
kid through the 'selective liberal arts college,' or the underpaid
un-tenured professor who knows a college will receive a mi
> Like, who's in charge?
Who do you think? The upper-class family paying $60K a year to put their kid
through the 'selective liberal arts college,' or the underpaid un-tenured
professor who knows a college will receive a minimum of 200 applications for
her position if they boot her after a thir
remarkable commitment of the folks who have kept Canyon
afloat for now half a century that they have been a very successful
distributor--at least in terms of the service they have provided--without
needing nonprofit status.*
*
*
*Scott*
-------- Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] c
sage
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
From: Matt Helme <dcinema2...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, February 19, 2012 12:03 pm
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
I was wondering why Canyon went for profit anyway? Matt http:/
: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
Could not agree more. But a workable middle ground needs to be found, utilizing
digital reproductions for cursory surveys but integrating real projected prints
where it is essential to the work. Maintaining one or two projectors for these
unique
Could not agree more. But a workable middle ground needs to be found, utilizing
digital reproductions for cursory surveys but integrating real projected prints
where it is essential to the work. Maintaining one or two projectors for these
unique experiences doesn't seem like too much of a burden
bruary 18, 2012 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
In a message dated 2/18/2012 2:16:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
djte...@gmail.com writes:
But a fundamental problem remains: the projection of prints is simply too
costly and difficult to serve the breadth of t
Departments don¹t give them money to rent films or projectors. Most schools
have disposed of their 16mm projectors.
Etc.
On 2/18/12 3:36 PM, "carli...@aol.com" wrote:
> In a message dated 2/18/2012 2:16:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> djte...@gmail.com writes:
>> But a fundamental problem re
On Feb 19, 2012, at 7:36 AM, mailto:carli...@aol.com>>
mailto:carli...@aol.com>> wrote:
So why don't the teachers of these classes just REQUIRE these students to view
actual film prints?
Like, who's in charge?
I don't get this idea of the "audience" wanting this rather than that. If the
te
While I don't have any solutions, Canyon's becoming a not for profit seems
like a good start. Perhaps then some in "the industry" who claim early
inspiration from experimental films will get out their checkbooks. Keeping
Canyon going wouldn't take that much. Perhaps some in the Bay Area could
form
In a message dated 2/18/2012 2:16:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
djte...@gmail.com writes:
But a fundamental problem remains: the projection of prints is simply too
costly and difficult to serve the breadth of the audience who wants or
needs those things experimental film has to offer, wh
> I am beginning to look into the creation of (don't know what to call it) a
> consortium of colleges, universities, archives, etcetera--places that want to
> continue to have the option to show prints--who would, in addition to paying
> rentals for screening individual films, pay an annual fee
sted in talking about why this situation has evolved in the way it has--I have too many ideas about that--than in doing what can be done, as soon as it can be done, to insure that the prints at Canyon remain available for rental.Scott
Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in
One of the things that I find curious is that you can rent a film print for a
fraction of the cost of renting a video copy. We were tracking down titles for
the curated shows at FLEXfest 2012 (which starts tonight, by the way), and we
discovered that we could get John Smith's Associations from
Wow this is harsh and somewhat ridiculous. This reply, below, is the cynical
one. David has it absolutely right, his assessment rings true and it is based
in real world experience, not some pouting ideology. And he is a teacher, so I
do hope he is one "who cares what students think today." Jee
vid Tetzlaff
> Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List
> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:01:42 -0500
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept)
>
> With 20-20 hindsight, we can see that the writing has been on the wall for t
Tetzlaff's remarks are not cynical, but realistic. Most of us who have lived
through the period he outlines know that it's true.
One element he doesn't account for is that experimental film screenings, as
events, are significant art world social experiences. And where we still find
regular sc
In a message dated 2/17/2012 10:01:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
djte...@gmail.com writes:
And if you think things might get 'better,' I think you're kidding
yourself. Because this is all about forces that are much larger than our
little
experimental film scene and have been rolling dow
With 20-20 hindsight, we can see that the writing has been on the wall for the
end of the co-op system as a sustainable form of distribution since May 10,
1975: the release date of the first practical home VCR.
Co-op distribution attempts to replicate in the fine-art world the business
model o
Mubi has a canyon page where you can watch some flicks for $
--
ekrem serdar
austin, tx
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:31 PM, John Woods wrote:
In that article it says that 70% of the films are not available digitally.
So if 30% of the collection has been digitized why not make a series of
"Best of Cany
In that article it says that 70% of the films are not available digitally. So
if 30% of the collection has been digitized why not make a series of "Best of
Canyon" dvd volumes? How about being able to pay a few bucks for a digital
download? Or is that legally impossible due to distribution contr
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/movies/canyon-cinema-filmmakers-cooperative-sees-grim-future.html?_r=3
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
42 matches
Mail list logo
