rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/27/89)
Let me elaborate a bit more on the new (moderated) group which I suggested in a pre call-for-discussion: rec.arts.movies.classical, which would be for the purpose of carrying on substantive, historically informed discussions about movies. I wrote (somewhere): >Discussions of the kind I have in mind are simply impossible to >carry out in effectively r.a.m (yes, I've tried, repeatedly). And someone responded: >what kind of discussions do you have in mind? My reply: For me, the crucial things that are lacking in r.a.m chat are (a) historical sensibility and (b) coherent, cinema-specific frames of reference. That was why I suggested (as one option) r.a.m.classical -- first, because it would suggest to people that they should write about the whole history of movie-making as opposed to focusing exclusively on this month's hot items (the general sense of "classic" as simply "old"); and second, because "classical" has a very specific meaning in the study of the history of cinema ("the classical Hollywood style", a well elaborated frame of reference) which would likewise compel people either to adopt that frame of reference in their writing or propose a specific alternative. It's really out of the question to try and carry on these kinds of discussions amidst the huge volume of r.a.m, so that option isn't really viable as far as I'm concerned. Right now, I'm only trying to gauge the overall level of interest -- if there's none, I'll drop it; if there's a little, maybe I'll set up a mailing list; if there's more, I'll go through the whole group creation process. .rs / rshapiro@bbn.com btw, I do not read rec.arts.movies anymore, so if you have a response you should be sure to include news.groups (or send me email if you prefer).