thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (01/05/90)
In article <50326@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >Several people have expressed approval for "rec.arts.cinema" as the >name of the proposed "serious movie talk" group, and no one has >expressed serious disapproval. Unless there are strong objections to >this name, I suggest we go with it. I think this is a fine name. Much better than rec.arts.movies.serious. >A charter might look something like the following. PLEASE feel free to >amend this in any way that seems appropriate -- it's just a starting >suggestion. > >REC.ARTS.CINEMA > >A moderated group for the serious discussion of movies. Any movie, >regardless of its artistic stature, is fair game for discussion, as is >any substantive approach to the subject. Explicitly *excluded* from >this group are the following: [List deleted] I have some problems with this charter. First of all, it seems that the proposed charter is too heavily geared toward keeping certain things out. While I can understand the sentiments that lead to this, I would prefer to expand the section that says what this group would be *for* rather than emphasize what this group is *not*. Second, "A moderated group for the serious discussion of movies" is too vague. Someone else made the excellent suggestion that we replace the word "movies" with "film" or "cinema". That will help, but I think we need to strengthen the definition of "serious discussion." Third, I think we need a list of examples of the kind of articles that we would like to see in this group. Fourth, I've seen a number of comments to the effect that the moderator should not act as an editor. I think that the distinction between the two is not nearly as sharp as it might seem. For instance, if I (as potential moderator of the as-of-yet uncreated group) decide that a submission is not appropriate for rec.arts.cinema, then it is only natural for the author to want to know why the article was rejected. As soon as I provide those reasons, the author has a basis for revising the article and submitting it again. I can't see how such a procedure is all that different from the review process that the author might go through with a professional editor at a serious periodical or journal. Any moderator will *by definition* have to take on some editor-like functions. I don't understand how a moderator could moderate anything otherwise. The real point is not whether the moderator acts as an editor but rather the precise nature of what the moderator is editing. I believe that a moderator/editor should focus primarily on maintaining a high discussion level (or signal to noise ratio, if you will) rather than regulating the specific conclusions or ideas expressed in the articles. Right then and there, that ensures the possibility that people can submit serious articles about Mothra movies if they so wish. And as I already stated in my previous posting, I would like to see articles that address all aspects of film (and all types of films), not just the ones that I personally am most interested in. To take care of these concerns, I propose the following revised charter: REC.ARTS.CINEMA This is a moderated group intended for serious articles addressing any and all aspects of cinema. Topics appropriate for discussion include (BUT ARE BY NO MEANS LIMITED TO) the following: -- cinematic techniques -- comparative analysis between cinema and other mediums of artistic expression -- film history -- cinema as an entertainment medium -- cinema as popular culture -- interpretation or analysis of a particular film or set of films -- financial, social, or legal issues that affect filmmaking (and vice versa) -- the quality and/or success of film festivals and other film-related events -- and any other topic related to film that people want to discuss in a serious way. The following criteria shall be among those used by the moderator to decide whether an article is "serious" or not: -- Is the article making a sincere argument? A more precise way to phrase this might be: does the author truly expect the readers to believe the points being made? Or a third way: is the article intellectually honest? -- Is the article well-written? Well-intentioned but poorly written articles tend to reflect thoughts and arguments that are best fuzzy or not well thought out. Nobody expects expect Pulitzer Prize-quality prose or poetic paragraphs. But if you can't be bothered to use good spelling, punctuation, and grammar, then you are calling into question just how much they really care about the arguments you are making. (This ties into the first criterion: one sign that an author is making a serious argument is that the author has taken the time to proofread the article before submitting it.) -- Are the points being made in the article cogent and consistent? Have any important facts or data relevant to the issues being discussed been left out? Are there any gaping holes in the fundamental assumptions or the logic being professed? NOTE: All of the above is entirely unrelated to the specific conclusions reached in the article or the particulars of the film(s) being discussed. The focus of the guidelines above is on 1) The intellectual coherency of the points being made and 2) the accuracy and completeness of the facts cited in the article. So if you have something serious to say about Mothra movies, and you make your points in a coherent and reasonably well-written way, then your article is perfectly fine for this newsgroup. The basic point is this: most readers of such this group will expect to read articles about film that are stimulating, interesting, and worth their time reading. This doesn't mean that readers have to agree with the *content* of what you're saying. But if readers find themselves thinking (for example) "This doesn't make any sense" or "The author clearly doesn't know much about the history of American musicals of the 1930s" then your article would not be appropriate for this newsgroup. The moderator is expected to exercise his/her discretion to pass on the good stuff, reject the bad stuff, and ask for revisions on borderline cases. And remember: if worse comes to worse, you are always free to post the article to rec.arts.movies or any other appropriate newsgroups. Items that are specifically excluded from rec.arts.cinema: -- Any kind of trivia questions/answers/games: use r.a.m instead -- Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead -- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead -- Movie reviews (as opposed to analysis): use r.a.m.reviews instead -- Queries/Reports of video availability: use r.v.software if it passes -- Flames: If you are genuinely outraged by an article, count to 10, collect your thoughts, and write another article in response. Otherwise, the moderator will feel free to hose you to help you cool off. -- Any other topic that might be excluded in the future by general consensus among rec.arts.cinema readers. (The moderator will post a revised list to inform everyone if such a consensus develops.) Moderator: Manavendra Thakur (End of my proposed charter.) Please make comments, suggestions, etc. on the above. Manavendra Thakur thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu thakur@eddie.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!thakur
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/05/90)
In article <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: >I have some problems with this charter. > [improved charter suggested; I'm mostly happy with it] > > -- Is the article well-written? Well-intentioned but poorly > written articles tend to reflect thoughts and arguments > that are best fuzzy or not well thought out. Nobody > expects expect Pulitzer Prize-quality prose or poetic > paragraphs. But if you can't be bothered to use > good spelling, punctuation, and grammar, then you are > calling into question just how much they really care about > the arguments you are making. (This ties into the first > criterion: one sign that an author is making a serious > argument is that the author has taken the time to proofread > the article before submitting it.) I wouldn't get too carried away with this. Language skills are not the strong point of the (mostly) technical community which dominates Usenet. That's a fact of life we have to live with. I'm not sure you'll get many submissions if the writers feel they're being judged on this basis. My suggestion is that, unless the language is likely to lead to confusion or misunderstanding, you should let it go. I'd love to see an on-line version of 'Screen', but that's shooting a little too high in the circumstances. People will want to use this group to learn, which means that we'll make the mistakes that students typically make. We should allow for this, I think.
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/05/90)
In article <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > [long discussion of charter] One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including made-for-cable) films are included. Mark has on occasion gotten complaints that a "film" he was reviewing was actually made for television, so his article should have gone to rec.arts.tv. I do not consider this a valid complaint, and would argue that made-for-television films (including documentaries--see the review of "Forbidden City, U.S.A" just posted to r.a.m.r) belong in rec.arts.cinema and r.a.m(.r). What do other people (including the moderator apparent) think? Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/06/90)
In article <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including made-for-cable) >films are included. >... >[I] would argue that >made-for-television films (including documentaries--see the review of >"Forbidden City, U.S.A" just posted to r.a.m.r) belong in rec.arts.cinema and >r.a.m(.r). This is pretty thorny. Are two-hour pilot episodes "movies"? If not, how are they different from made-for-tv movies? How about a mini-series -- is it a movie? Or think about it from the other perspective: are the serial Westerns of the 30's "movies" or are they the equivalent of tv shows? They were an hour long (or so), with continuing characters -- really no different from "Gunsmoke". Why are they "movies" when "Gunsmoke" isn't? Because of the physical medium? But "Moonlighting" was produced for film rather than tape. Because of the intended exhibition place? That's clear enough, but it seems arbitrary, especially now that many movies are only viewable via video. The easy answer to these questons is to do what the serious "cinema" journals started to do in the 70's -- include tv & video without any constraints. Personally, I would be very happy to see this happen. However, I suspect that that's a minority opinion. Anyone else feel this way? If not, how do you propose to distinguish movies from tv shows?
boyajian@ruby.dec.com (The Dread Pirate Roberts) (01/06/90)
In article <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: } One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including } made-for-cable) films are included. } [...] would argue that made-for-television films [...] belong in } rec.arts.cinema and r.a.m(.r). I would agree. Some factors to consider: (1) The dividing line between theatrical releases, home video releases, and television "releases" is getting fuzzier. If we decide that tv-movies are no go, what about direct-to-video releases? (2) The medium of display often changes at the last minute. A studio may make a film with the intention of releasing it to theaters, but as a result of poor reception at "sneak previews", deciding to go direct to video or cable. Or, a film may have been intended for television and end up being released theatrically (one example I can think of is an anthology film NIGHTMARES). (3) An American made-for-tv film may get theatrical distribution in Europe. So, with respect to us, it's a tv movie, but to Europeans, it's a theatrical movie. Sometimes this happens in the US. TESTAMENT, for example, appears to have been made with the intention of it being a "PBS film", and yet it was apparently released to theaters in some limited arrangement as evidenced by Jane Alexander's Oscar nomination. (4) How do we deal with tv *versions* of films previously released to theaters -- films that were re-edited with additional footage for their television broadcast? In a discussion of the Godfather films, for example, would the "tv mini-series" cut be valid source material in place of the two distinct theatrical films? (5) How about made-for-tv sequels or spin-offs of films? I'd consider a compare-and-contrast article on HIGH NOON vs. its tv-sequel HIGH NOON II: THE RETURN OF WILL KANE to be completely appropriate. Or say, one that looks at the differences between M*A*S*H the film and M*A*S*H the tv series. I sympathize with the Maltin viewpoint that "tv films are a breed apart" but it seems to be getting less easy to distinguish exactly where the dividing line occurs. It seems more intuitive than anything else. And I think *that* should be the basis -- and on a case by case basis -- for the appropriateness of the subject matter. I wouldn't like to see, for example, a discussion in rec.arts.cinema that revolves around, say, I LOVE LUCY as a program. On the other hand, if one wanted to write an article highlighting Lucille Ball's career it would rightly and necessarily delve into her television work in some detail. An article about "Nuclear Fear Films" would be incomplete without making reference to tv films like SPECIAL BULLETIN or THREADS, never mind the real fence-straddlers like THE DAY AFTER or TESTAMENT. It would be appropriate to use the mini-series AMERIKA in a discussion of the image of Soviet-American relations in film. And so on, and so on, and so on. For better or for worse, television has greatly affected the film industry. It was the dominant factor in the switch to widescreen photography. It has completely changed the accessibility of older films that might have otherwise disappeared into oblivion. It (unfortunately) is the root cause of colorization. And so on, blah, blah, blah. And the home video revolution goes hand-in-hand with it. In article <50483@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes... } The easy answer to these questons is to do what the serious "cinema" } journals started to do in the 70's -- include tv & video without any } constraints. Personally, I would be very happy to see this happen. } However, I suspect that that's a minority opinion. Anyone else feel } this way? If not, how do you propose to distinguish movies from tv shows? I'm nervous about the "without contraints" clause, but can't say exactly why. Maybe because it allows the potential for discussions of television material to dominant the group (however unlikely I'm sure that is). I would not like to see this happen. On the other hand, a "serious" article that examines the dystopic atmosphere of MAX HEADROOM in the same way that another might do for BLADE RUNNER seems to me to be more appropriate for this type of newsgroup than for r.a.tv. "Although you whirl wonderously with your majestic and superior cackling hen, your people I do not understand." --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA) UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%ruby.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/06/90)
In article <7261@shlump.nac.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.dec.com (The Dread Pirate Roberts) writes: >[reasons why it makes little sense to distinguish 'made-for-tv' > movies from other movies] >In article <50483@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes... > >} The easy answer to these questons is to do what the serious "cinema" >} journals started to do in the 70's -- include tv & video without any >} constraints... > >I'm nervous about the "without contraints" clause, but can't say exactly >why. I should have been more clear on one point: the "seriousness" constraint remains. It's just the "movie" constraint that's done away with. > Maybe because it allows the potential for discussions of television >material to dominant the group (however unlikely I'm sure that is). You're right that it's unlikely, if only because relatively few people have a "serious" interest in tv. I wouldn't be surprised if many r.a.c supporters don't watch tv at all. In some ways, I must admit that I find some popular tv to be more interesting and more adventurous than most popular cinema. Not as art, particularly -- if the group sticks primarily to cinema as art, we won't see many articles on tv. On the other hand, "art video" is a topic we should be willing to cover, no? >would not like to see this happen. On the other hand, a "serious" article >that examines the dystopic atmosphere of MAX HEADROOM in the same way that >another might do for BLADE RUNNER seems to me to be more appropriate for >this type of newsgroup than for r.a.tv. I agree with this, but it may be opening up more than you think. Why not an equally serious article on the different presentations of gender relationships in "thirtysomething" and recent Woody Allen films? To go even further: how about an examination of the way that tv commercials borrow and "detourne" imagery from classical Hollywood cinema? I don't know if I could write such articles, but I know I'd like to read them, and I know there's nowhere to post them right now. Can we include all of this in the term "cinema"?
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/07/90)
In article <50483@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >The easy answer to these questons is to do what the serious "cinema" >journals started to do in the 70's -- include tv & video without any >constraints. Personally, I would be very happy to see this happen. >However, I suspect that that's a minority opinion. Anyone else feel >this way? If not, how do you propose to distinguish movies from tv >shows? I'm on your side, Richard. Cinema is motion pictures; pictures that move. It doesn't matter where they are shown or what production company makes them or how much money they spent per second of action. I'd probably cringe and vomit at a discussion of blocking of characters in Gilligan's Island relative to their importance to that week's episode, but I'd never snub it merely over its medium. Discussions of scheduling and the careers of its stars I wouldn't brook, but if you have something to say about the noticeable cinematic differences between its B&W and In Color eras, then I'm (nearly) all for it. --Blair "But be kind enough to supply the barf bags if you do start discussing such things, would you?"
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (01/07/90)
In article <50456@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >I wouldn't get too carried away with this. Language skills are not the >strong point of the (mostly) technical community which dominates >Usenet. That's a fact of life we have to live with. I'm not sure >you'll get many submissions if the writers feel they're being judged >on this basis. Well said -- content should be the major thing being moderated. I'd keep it limited to "discussions of the cinema, cinematic works or aspects of the field." Though I agree that the exclusions are a bit more prominent that I like, perhaps we could boil it down to "trivia, polls and requests for specific film information." (Though the later could be answered once within a moderated group.) "The greatest cunning is to have none at all." -- Carl Sandburg --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (01/08/90)
In article <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: } One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including } made-for-cable) films are included. > } [...] would argue that made-for-television films [...] belong in } rec.arts.cinema and r.a.m(.r). Consider, if you will, BUCK ROGERS (the TV show). The producers were asked to prove the show would generate income, so they released the pilot as a movie. It was successful enough to have the nutworks (that is *not* a typo) agree to pick up the show (production costs were quite high on it). Would discussion of this fall into R.A.C or R.A.TV ? If there was ever a fine line, I think that this is an example of one. This definitely firms my resolve on moderation, but would the moderator permit this? Does this belong? JMI jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com [std. pithy disclaimer]
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/09/90)
thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: >Fourth, I've seen a number of comments to the effect that the >moderator should not act as an editor. I think that the distinction >between the two is not nearly as sharp as it might seem. [more deleted for the sake of brevity] There's room for disagreement about what is correct or proper even when it comes to simple items of grammar--I know, because I've even debated with someone over whether "awhile" is as valid as "a while." I'm not familiar enough with the review process to know whether what I'm getting at fits within it or exists outside it--the point that I've tried to make is that no writer's stuff should be changed and then posted unless the author first has a chance to look the article over and say, "OK. I accept this. Post it." In other words, the author has the final say over what appears under his/her name, not the editor. I'm not suggesting anything other than that, if a moderator edits, the author have the final say about whether an article that has been modified be posted under his/her name. Am I insisting that something that's already implicit and common practice be explicit? I really don't know how things commonly work. >The real point is not whether the moderator acts as an editor but >rather the precise nature of what the moderator is editing. I agree that the nature of what is edited is important; but I still am unclear from what you write what you consider to be within the scope of the editor. Other than that, I think everything in the proposed charter is as clear as glass, and like its clarity. I think that you lay to rest some of the issues that have been talked over here, including whether r.a.c. should be a subgroup of r.a.m. To me, the charter makes it clear that r.a.c is not a subgroup, but a whole different ball game. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..uunet!everexn!karen ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "I don't care what people think! I just care about my reputation!" Grant Linowitz
jcoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (01/10/90)
>} One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including >} made-for-cable) films are included. >} [...] would argue that made-for-television films [...] belong in >} rec.arts.cinema and r.a.m(.r). > > (info on Buck Rogers movie hit/ television series failure deleted...) > >Would discussion of this fall into R.A.C or R.A.TV ? If there was ever a fine >line, I think that this is an example of one. This definitely firms my resolve >on moderation, but would the moderator permit this? Does this belong? > But isn't the whole point of unmoderated groups the open discussion (however redundant)? I believe that both options should exist for the network user... Let those who want their chatter "cleaned up" frequent the moderated groups, and those who enjoy "the banter", read from those that are not. Hailing Frequencies Closed. "Captain" D. Joseph Creighton *******************************************************************************