rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/27/89)
In article <496.25976370@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) writes: >I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to >call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out >of first and second run. The .classic conotation seems to me to be a breeding >ground for discontent as what is a classic to some people (for instance WHIFFS >a rather lame movie with Eddie Albert) is trash to others. Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of making movies and says nothing about relative merits. One kind of argument I do *not* want to have is "what is a 'classic'?" -- I agree that this is a pointless exercise. The point of this particular subgroup is to discuss the huge group of films (good AND bad; Orson Welles AND Eddie Albert) which could fall under the heading of "classical Hollywood style" -- broadly speaking, feature films from the Hollywood studio system, 1920 through the early 1960's (see the excellent book _The Classical Hollywood Cinema_, by David Bordwell, Janet Staiger & Kristin Thompson for further details). By any measure, this group of movies has been the single most dominant influence in the history of cinema. And yet, it's rarely touched upon in r.a.m, except in the occasional "list the films" query. The reason may be that no one is interested. But it's at least possible that it has more to do with the volume of traffic on r.a.m and the concentration of that traffic on (1) contemporary movies and (2) lists/trivia. Someone else has suggested r.a.m.lists as a home for (2), which I think is a great idea. Also, the suggestion above for r.a.m.tech, for discussion of technical aspects of film-making, is an idea I would support. All of this suggests to me that we should leave r.a.m primarily for discussion of recent/current movies (since that's by far the dominant tendency in that group anyway). It would still be a busy and active group, though perhaps slightly less unwieldy than it is now. And people with other movie interests could use the Net without each of them having to set up elaborate filtering programs. So, after a bit of doubt, maybe I'm coming back to believing that rec.arts.movies.classical is a feasible idea.
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (12/28/89)
From article <50113@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro): > > Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in > "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of > making movies and says nothing about relative merits. One kind of > argument I do *not* want to have is "what is a 'classic'?" -- I agree > ... > "classical Hollywood style" -- broadly speaking, feature films from > the Hollywood studio system, 1920 through the early 1960's (see the If this is your definition then why not call it r.a.m.pre60? If not, then the definition of "classical" will INEVITABLY change to include the early '70s in 10 years or so ("_The Godfather_, what a classic!"-- someone in 1996). If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA
peterd@opus.cs.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) (12/28/89)
In article <50113@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: > In article <496.25976370@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) writes: > >I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to > >call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out > >of first and second run. The .classic conotation seems to me to be a breeding > >ground for discontent as what is a classic to some people (for instance WHIFFS > >a rather lame movie with Eddie Albert) is trash to others. > > Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in > "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of > making movies and says nothing about relative merits. . . . Hmmm, I would suggest either rec.arts.movies.past or .historical. Why? I think both .classic and .classical have the same problem and .vault is probably a little obscure. How about a contest to name it? (a couple of smileys here). - peterd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +-------+ Peter Deutsch, -- where am I? -- | u # u | School of Computer Science, internet: peterd@cs.mcgill.ca |/\/\/\/| McGill University, bitnet: peterd@musocs | a a | 3480 University St. uucp:..!mit-eddie!musocs!peterd \ a / Montreal, Que, Canada, H3A 2A7 phone: (514) 398-6698 \_____/ fax: (514) 398-3883 "These are only my opinions, but I'm willing to share..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/28/89)
In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >From article <50113@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro): >> [explanation of "classical" in the context of film history] >If this is your definition then why not call it r.a.m.pre60? If not, >then the definition of "classical" will INEVITABLY change to include >the early '70s in 10 years or so ("_The Godfather_, what a classic!"-- >someone in 1996). As explained before, "classical" says nothing about the merits of a movies. It refers to a particular set of formal and institutional constraints. A movie cannot "become" classical - either it was made that way or it wasn't. It's purely a descriptive term, not an evaluative one. And it does NOT refer only to a time period (there are many superb non-classical movies throughout the history of cinema). PRE60 would be even more misleading than CLASSICAL -- the point was not when it was made, but how it was made. >If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is >to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). No, genre is much too narrow of a focus and "foreign", while not a genre and not overly narrow, is too provincial -- Swedish readers don't regard Bergman's films as foreign-language. Classical is broad enough to attract a sizable audience, but focused enough to keep from getting out of hand. However, having said all of that, I can see from this example that "classical" will be problematic because of misunderstanding. To some extent, the moderator can deal with this problem (she can write back to the person who submits the article on _The Godfather_ and explain why it's a post-modern movie rather than a classical one, for instance). Or we could periodically repeat explanations of what "classical" mean (in fact, I would expect some argument about what it means, which is fine). Or, perhaps the person who suggested "rec.arts.movies.forum" is on a better track, and the discrimination should be strictly on the basis of "seriousness" rather than historical/social context. The problem with this is deciding what is serious and what isn't. Is the "Deckard is/is not a replicant" discussion that pops up from time to time on r.a.m serious? I would say it isn't, but it's a close call. Pointing out continuity errors? Trivia, imho, and not so close of a call. Lists of movies starring Eddie Albert? Definitely not serious (likewise simple lists of movies made by Godard, or any other lists). But these are just my opinions; others will disagree I'm sure. This puts lots of power in the hands of the moderator. But with a responsible moderator, we could get some excellent wide-ranging discussions in such a group. This is all still in the "pre discussion" phase, remember. From the looks of things, there is some interest in getting a new group (or possibly a mailing list) for serious and extended film talk, which is a good thing. If the consensus favors a more general format like r.a.m.forum, I'm happy to shift the focus there. Perhaps it deserves another "Call for Discussion" announcement, and we can let r.a.m.classical slip away peacefully...
martyst@sco.COM (Marty Stevens) (12/29/89)
In article <50113@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <496.25976370@devsim.mdcbbs.com> jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) writes: >>I would like to see another name besides .classic, but I am at a loss of what to >>call it... perhaps .vault as in 'film vault' the place that films go when out > >Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in How about r.a.m.scholar? This would seem to be able to encompass a wide variety of films, as long as they were dealt with in a largely informed manner. This way anything from Citizen Kane to Forbidden Planet to, yes, the latest release could be discussed, as long as the manner in which it is discussed is serious. (For the part at least. Smileys allowed.) Marty -- Try not to get worried, try not to turn onto, problems that upset you. Ah, don't you know everything's alright? -- Andrew Lloyd Webber
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (12/29/89)
I think the number of genres would make division along these lines
prohibitive. (Also, I have a horror of finding a
rec.arts.movies.buddy-films one fine day.) I think Richard's original idea
is sound, but agree on the problem of defining classic. How about a
rec.arts.movies.current, for movies in current release? I know, because of
second-run theaters, this is fuzzy, too, but it confine things more sharply
than .classic. Besides, I think there might be people out there who only
are interested in discussion of newly-released films, and not too much about
older film discussions.
Speaking for myself, I'm not pushing for rec.arts.movies to be divided (my
major grievences were solved by the moderated rec.arts.movies.reviews
group), but I can see the reasoning behind it and certainly wouldn't stand
in the way.
"Well, I wouldn't exactly call it 'working'...more
like 'groveling for dollars.'"
---
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! <*>rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/30/89)
OK, it looks to me as if a clear consensus is forming around the idea of a "serious" discussion group which would cover all movies. I hereby drop the rec.arts.movies.classic(al) idea. As usual, there's some contention about the name. I think we should bite the bullet and go for something long and inelegant, but clear and, from the net hierrarchy point of view, conherent and consistent. It really should be under rec.arts.movies, so how about: rec.arts.movies.serious ? Anyway, let's forget the "classical" idea and the more general idea of fragmenting r.a.m and focus instead on discussing the merits of this proposal: a moderated group for serious/scholarly discussion of any and all movies. Moderation is essential here, I think, otherwise it will be no different from r.a.m. There are probably a few things we should exclude from the start: any kind of lists, contests, trivia, movie or actor identification, etc. On the other hand, we should NEVER exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine. If interested people agree that the group should be moderated, we need a moderator. Volunteers? I'm willing though not anxious (and possibly not able -- see below). Anyone else? [NB: I'm about to change jobs and I may not have Usenet access when the time comes for calling a vote. Will someone else volunteer to conduct the vote in that event?]
daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read) (01/03/90)
In article <50208@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >OK, it looks to me as if a clear consensus is forming around the idea >of a "serious" discussion group which would cover all movies. I hereby >drop the rec.arts.movies.classic(al) idea. > >As usual, there's some contention about the name. I think we should >bite the bullet and go for something long and inelegant, but clear >and, from the net hierrarchy point of view, conherent and consistent. >It really should be under rec.arts.movies, so how about: > > rec.arts.movies.serious > ... we should never >exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone >has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine. I just want to add my support for this proposal. I have only recently had access to this news network. Since starting to read r.a.m I have become increasingly disappointed with the kind of discussion that is its stock and trade. A moderated group discussing films as works of art would be a delight.
dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) (01/03/90)
In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>, sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: > If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is > to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.). Which would be fine if everything was easily defined. Which genre does Alien belong to, Horror or SF? How about Aliens: SF or action/adventure? Is The Blues Brothers a comedy or a musical? Is The World According To Garp a comedy or a drama? How about The Sting? The Purple Rose of Cairo? Hannah and Her Sisters? Crimes and Misdemeanors? One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest? Etc etc etc. -- Doug Moran | When correctly viewed, everything is lewd. pyramid!ctnews!unix386!dougm | I could tell you things about Peter Pan, and dougm@unix386.Convergent.com | the Wizard of Oz, *there's* a dirty old man!