chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham) (06/09/91)
[Moderator's note: I'll add my thoughts to Chris' comments in a separate posting that will follow this one. -- MKT] It's been about two years since I posted an article to r.a.c so I think it's about time that I helped save this group from the rmgroup gods...I have a number of suggestions and complaints I would like to air, but first I have some questions. I'd like to ask the readers of this group what *they* think is an appropriate subject for r.a.c. Are you interested in "high brow" (a la NY Times) type reviews of popular fiction films or perhaps are you interested in film theory? Does the philosophical aspect of film theory interest any of you...or would you prefer lighter critical reviews which highlight such things like acting, musical score, or set design in aesthetic rather than theoretical terms? Who out there in netland is a "serious" student of film i.e. graduate or undergraduate film or communication student or a faculty type person? If you are one of these "types" why not post an essay on film or some thoughts on film in academe? Now for some suggestions and complaints. What do you think about the idea of a moderator for this group? Perhaps Manavendra could respond here, suggesting possible ways in which we could increase traffic flow. My vote would be to "unmoderate" the group and let anyone post. I think one message every 3 months is a little light! Perhaps we could begin some sort of monthly summation of recent books on film or reviews of movies...anything to get this traffic up. Any suggestions here? Are there any filmmakers that might want to contribute? Please send me mail or post here with your ideas on film... I would like to hear from as many of the r.a.c readers as possible with suggestions and complaints--mail to me directly or post here. [Manavendra please make sure these messages get posted!!!] My bottom line is I want to see more articles on more topics. The serious study of cinema provides us with an incredibly rich arena in which to explore so many pressing issues of our day in ways that really tax our critical capacities and allow us to explore areas which we normally would not encounter. For example, when we analyze cinema in aesthetic terms we examine fundamental notions of beauty or ugliness that are a part of our cultural heritage (whatever culture that might be) or when we analyze cinema in ideological terms we express ideas about the structure of our society. At the root of these ideas are philosophies which guide our understanding of cinema and also tell us how we perceive our world. Film theorists (either "professional" or "amateur") are a lot like philosophers--but we don't have to be as pretentious |-). Finally a little note about myself. I'm a graduate student at Simon Fraser University where I'm studying film in the Department of Communication. --- chris brougham chris@sloth.bc.ca
thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (06/09/91)
[To help foster discussion on the dearth of postings to
rec.arts.cinema, here is a copy of the charter of the newsgroup. This
is the charter that was debated and voted upon by people on the net
before the newsgroup was created on February 22, 1990. Perhaps a new
discussion should take place as to whether this charter should be
amended? -- MKT]
=====================================
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 acceptable 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?
-- 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?
-- Is the article likely to be correctly understood?
If the moderator determines that an article is likely to be
misunderstood, it will be returned to the author for
clarification. The moderator will not alter an
article in any way unless the author indicates that this is
acceptable. The moderator will not reject an article solely
on the basis of minor spelling or grammatical errors.
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.
Moderator: Manavendra Thakur
=====================================thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.222345.8252@cfa.harvard.edu> chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham) writes: > >It's been about two years since I posted an article to r.a.c so I >think it's about time that I helped save this group from the rmgroup >gods...I have a number of suggestions and complaints I would like to >air, but first I have some questions. Actually, Chris, the newsgroup has been in existence since February 22, 1990. Not quite two years yet, although it may seem like it! >I'd like to ask the readers of this group what *they* think is an >appropriate subject for r.a.c. Are you interested in "high brow" (a la >NY Times) type reviews of popular fiction films or perhaps are you >interested in film theory? Does the philosophical aspect of film >theory interest any of you...or would you prefer lighter critical >reviews which highlight such things like acting, musical score, or set >design in aesthetic rather than theoretical terms? Just a point of information here: The current charter for r.a.c. (see my previous posting) specifically prohibits reviews of films, as rec.arts.movies.reviews is the appropriate newsgroup for such film reviews. The charter for r.a.c. does, however, permit "interpretation and analysis of a particular film or set of films," which seems to mirror the type of articles that you propose above. I'll leave it to the readership to decide whether this distinction between "interpretation and analysis" and "review" should be maintained. >What do you think about the idea of a moderator for this group? >Perhaps Manavendra could respond here, suggesting possible ways in >which we could increase traffic flow. My vote would be to "unmoderate" >the group and let anyone post. I think one message every 3 months is a >little light! Here is a basic rundown on the approach I've taken to moderating the newsgroup. I'll leave it to the readership to debate and decide whether this approach stifles articles, and if so, whether the moderation process should be improved or abandoned altogether. I have done little in the way of actively requesting articles from people. Once in a while, I have sent email to people who posted interesting articles in other newsgroups, and in these notes I've encouraged them to both post to r.a.c. and inform any friends who also might be interested in posting to r.a.c. But that is the extent of my efforts to "recruit" articles. If readers agree that the newsgroup should remain moderated, then this certainly is an area that could be improved. As for my approach to moderating the newsgroup, I have, of course, tried to remain faithful to the charter of r.a.c. With that lofty goal in mind, here are some more down-to-earth facts. I don't have any hard statistics, but I would estimate that about 20% to 30% of the postings I receive are inappropriate to this newsgroup. E.g., a number of postings advertised a particular film event prior to its taking place. I have disallowed such postings, since they are useless to most members of the worldwide readership of the newsgroup and did not contribute to any sort of meaningful discussion. These are primarily the type of articles that I have rejected outright. Of the remaining postings, I would estimate - again, I have no hard numbers - that more than 50% have been returned by me to the author for some sort of clarification or improvement. Some of these clarifications were small grammatical changes, minor factual errors, spelling, and the like. Just about every author to whom I've sent such a clarification request has agreed to the suggestions or made their own changes. Upon receipt of the author's reply, I have posted the articles without any further delay. I should point out that the grammatical clarification requests were almost always appended to more important clarification requests that affected the article's content (see below). I don't believe I've returned an article for clarification solely because of grammatical or other minor errors. Most often when I've returned articles for clarification, it was because in my opinion the articles needed more information or discussion to be of sufficient interest to readers of the newsgroup. For example, I have in the past received postings that stated "I'm interested in XYZ, are there other people interested in XYZ? If so, let's start a discussion on it." In my response to the authors of such postings, I have pointed out that in my estimation the readers of this newsgroup were likely to be more sophisticated than the casual movie-goer, and therefore it was quite likely that at least some readers would be interested in XYZ. So I've encouraged the author to write something that would spark the kind of discussion s/he wanted. In just about every one of these cases, the author agreed to add more information or comments to the article and then resubmit it. Unfortunately, due to lack of time or other reasons, most people did not actually submit a revised article. When this happened, I've tried to send email to the authors, reminding them. I have not done this too often, however, since people are donating their time voluntarily and I did not feel I had the right to demand anything. Also, I confess to being lazy and not taking the initiative to remind authors as often as I perhaps should have. Some people did follow through, and these articles were posted to the net, usually after a total of one or two exchanges of email. Only in one case do I remember an article that needed significant editing [all of which was done by the author himself after I made suggestions as to where the article could be improved]. In that case the article was posted after a total delay of about 5 to 7 days, if memory serves. Some postings, of course, did not require any modifications at all, and were posted, usually within hours after being received at my home machine. This is, in sum, the approach I've taken to postings received by me. I would welcome questions, comments, criticisms, suggestions, ideas, etc on how this approach might be improved - or whether the newsgroup should be made unmoderated altogether. Let me also ask readers what the best mechanism is for *discussing* the changes that should or might be made. Should r.a.c. be made unmoderated while the discussion takes place? Or should people post as is and trust me to post articles that might be critical of my role as moderator? I have no preference one way or another. If people wish to leave the group moderated during the discussion, I will of course pledge not make any attempt to censor articles or otherwise use my role as current moderator to unduly influence the debate. I would like to thank Chris Brougham for bringing up these issues and sparking what I hope is a healthy discussion that rejuvenates rec.arts.cinema and fulfills its potential. Manavendra Thakur Moderator, rec.arts.cinema thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.224034.8360@cfa.harvard.edu> thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > >[To help foster discussion on the dearth of postings to >rec.arts.cinema, here is a copy of the charter of the newsgroup. This >is the charter that was debated and voted upon by people on the net >before the newsgroup was created on February 22, 1990. Perhaps a new >discussion should take place as to whether this charter should be >amended? -- MKT] Well I think that the discussion is underway as of now. :-) Actually, to maintain a moderated group like this one it would have been helpful if you sent down the charter about once per month to remind people of its mandate and yes, to inspire postings assuming they are desirable. And that's not something that should be assumed. The Net is not a BBS and if an area has outlived its usefulness, it *should* be allowed to die and be removed. Otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth, which costs money. >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: Well this is the crux of the problem. The general mandate is co-extensive to the 'rec.arts.movies' area. At most, the details simply boil down to "this group is serious" and "rec.arts.movies is a free-for-all." >-- cinematic techniques That's ok, but it's being discussed everywhere. >-- comparative analysis between cinema and other mediums of artistic > expression Again, nothing that's not being discussed elsewhere. >-- film history Same comment again. >-- 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. ditto, ditto, ditto, etc. >The following criteria shall be among those used by the moderator to >decide whether an article is acceptable 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? > > -- 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? > > -- Is the article likely to be correctly understood? > If the moderator determines that an article is likely to be > misunderstood, it will be returned to the author for > clarification. The moderator will not alter an > article in any way unless the author indicates that this is > acceptable. The moderator will not reject an article solely > on the basis of minor spelling or grammatical errors. And all this simply says "here we're being serious." >Items that are specifically excluded from rec.arts.cinema: > >-- Any kind of trivia questions/answers/games: use r.a.m instead This is ok. >-- Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead Well this I disagree with. A "simple list" is valuable as reference material and is "serious". >-- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead I don't see why this should be excluded. >-- Movie reviews (as opposed to analysis): use r.a.m.reviews instead Well this is debateable. It seems to me that the "reviews" could have been included in this group, but then again, maybe people didn't want them "moderated". >-- Queries/Reports of video availability: use r.v.software if it passes I checked our node and we don't have an area called 'rec.video.software' if that's what it's supposed to be called. Is this area simply missing from our node or has it been killed? >-- 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. > I wasn't around at the formation of this group, so I wonder if there was a specific problem being addressed with its creation. Nothing in the mandate speaks to any particular need except possible getting rid of shear bulk (redundency and noise postings) in the 'rec.arts.movies' area. And that's a laudable thing to attempt. I look at the message count in 'rec.arts.movies' and generally I won't even start to read through the messages there. I don't feel like wasting that much time. But if that was the point, it looks like people have voted with their usage to use the simpler expedient of using the one group rather than trying to decide which to post in. All in all, yeah, I think if nobody is going to use it, then it might as well be killed. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
cnorman@UCSD.EDU (Cyndi Norman) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun8.222345.8252@cfa.harvard.edu> chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham) writes: >I'd like to ask the readers of this group what *they* think is an >appropriate subject for r.a.c. Are you interested in "high brow" (a la >NY Times) type reviews of popular fiction films or perhaps are you >interested in film theory? Does the philosophical aspect of film >theory interest any of you...or would you prefer lighter critical >reviews which highlight such things like acting, musical score, or set >design in aesthetic rather than theoretical terms? > >Who out there in netland is a "serious" student of film i.e. graduate >or undergraduate film or communication student or a faculty type >person? If you are one of these "types" why not post an essay on film >or some thoughts on film in academe? This is the first I've heard of or seen of this group (though I've been on the net for 9 months). The charter looks extremely interesting and I would like to see this group work. I am a graduate student in Communication (at the University of California at San Diego). Film study is a part of my department although I do not do any myself. I am interested in how film (as well as other media) reflect society. The best discussions, in my opinion, would use a particular film (or films) as an example of a cultural construction or concept, as opposed to simply discussing a film in a vacuum. Chances are, I would not try to post myself (except perhaps in response to someone else) but I would like to read other postings; many may end up in my various files. I see no reason to unmoderate the group since that would change its substance. There already exists an unmoderated group to discuss film/movies. If the group gets going, I could probably encourage some of my fellow students (and maybe professors) to contribute. Many of them use film in their work, some study film directly, and some create films. I must say, I don't fit into any of those categories (almost the first one) but that won't stop me from having a more than passing interest. __________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@ucsd (bitnet) ______________________________________________ cnorman@ucsd.edu (internet)
chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham) (06/10/91)
> From article <1991Jun9.064801.11064@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, by jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura): > Well I think that the discussion is underway as of now. :-) > Actually, to maintain a moderated group like this one it would > have been helpful if you sent down the charter about once per > month to remind people of its mandate and yes, to inspire postings Yes this is a very good point. > removed. Otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth, which costs > money. Nope. r.a.c does not waste net bandwidth...r.a.c costs my site zilch to bring in--c'mon one message every 3 months oooooh big expense :-). > Well this is the crux of the problem. The general mandate is > co-extensive to the 'rec.arts.movies' area. At most, the details > simply boil down to "this group is serious" and "rec.arts.movies > is a free-for-all." OK. This is a reasonably good point. I don't read rec.arts.movies but I assume that discussion there is similar to reviews, comments, "insights," etc. that take place in the popular press or on T.V. shows like Entertainment Tonight. By serious discussion of cinema do you mean mean scholarly? If you do then there is a good case for r.a.c.'s existence as a moderated independent group from r.a.m simply because there is no other *scholarly* forum in which to discuss film. Perhaps this point should be stressed in the charter. However, if by serious you mean high fallutin' windbag kind of stuff then I would say scrap r.a.c. Maybe a warning should be put in the charter that scholarly does not mean that! The list of r.a.c charter items you comment on (film techniques, history etc.) may indeed be discussed in other areas but are probably not discussed in the same terms or with the understanding that film study is a form of scholarship. I feel compelled to compile a list of film terms and post these to give readers an idea of the kinds of words and phrases encountered in film journals. This critical toolbox might help readers in their postings...any comment here? > And all this simply says "here we're being serious." Perhaps, but I think it is presented in terms that are understandable to those who engage in film study and I think the charter provides a good introduction to film scholarship for newcomers. When I first read the charter it was painfully clear to me what kind of thing Manavendra was looking for. I sent a "serious" essay on psychoanalytic semiotics and film that Manavendra said was exactly kind of thing he was looking for. Yeah its serious but it doesn't have to be dry. I mean the thesis I'm working on now is about sound tracks in James Bond films...serious?, scholarly?, stupid? whatever... [BTW I have disowned that "psycho" essay as a cheap attempt to satisfy the requirements for an undergraduate film theory course and the essay does not represent my current view on the subject--perhaps more on this later] >>Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead > > Well this I disagree with. A "simple list" is valuable as reference > material and is "serious". > Yah me too. List are OK. I'd like to see filmographies of obscure directors or lists of films from developing nations. That kind of thing might not make it to r.a.m. >>-- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead > > I don't see why this should be excluded. > I agree here as well. > All in all, yeah, I think if nobody is going to use it, then > it might as well be killed. Too cruel!!! Like I mean who cares if no one posts and it takes up a whole 4 k of file space on your drive or whatever...but people do post here just not very often. I want to get the postings in this group up to two or three a day. I want to save r.a.c. from cranky sysadm's. --- chris brougham chris@sloth.bc.ca
steves@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Steve Scher) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.064330.11796@zerkalo.harvard.edu> chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham) writes: > > > >OK. This is a reasonably good point. I don't read rec.arts.movies >but I assume that discussion there is similar to reviews, >comments, "insights," etc. that take place in the popular >press or on T.V. shows like Entertainment Tonight. This is not really a completely accurate assumption. In fact, while there are reviews posted, and discussion of film, etc., a large part of r.a.m is movie trivia, lists, discussions of current films, and never-ending repetitions of various topics (cf. the Frequently Asked Questions List). I voted for the creation of r.a.c because I also wanted to see a more prominent place given to the all too infrequent "serious" discussion of films -- especially non-current films, films in their socio-historical context, and the literary and artistic elements of films. (NOTE: This does not NECESSARILY mean scholarly. See Below). This discussion was getting swamped in r.a.movies, and generally did not get propogated. It is VERY rare that a discussion will spring up around a film unless some specific element arouses it: e.g. it is a current release, it is being re-released, or it wins some award. >By serious >discussion of cinema do you mean mean scholarly? If you do then there is >a good case for r.a.c.'s existence as a moderated independent group from >r.a.m simply because there is no other *scholarly* forum in which to >discuss film. Perhaps this point should be stressed in the charter. However, >if by serious you mean high fallutin' windbag kind of stuff >then I would say scrap r.a.c. Maybe a warning should be put in the >charter that scholarly does not mean that! > > This is the kind of thing that I don't think we can expect r.a.cinema to be. I don't think that many of us are serious students of film (as in official students). That is, most of us are probably intelligent, intellectually-minded people with more than a passing interest in film, but which doesn't expand into our own professional or scholarly work. (At least, with the possible exception of the first adjective, that describes me). What we need are discussions of issues, not dictionaries of the proper language to use. That will develop as we need it. > >From the R.A.Cinema Charter: >>>Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead >> From article <1991Jun9.064801.11064@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, by jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura): >> Well this I disagree with. A "simple list" is valuable as reference >> material and is "serious". >> Certainly this can be a valuable reference tool, but it is inappropriate for this group, because its goal is to foster serious _discussion_, not provide an electronic "Film Comment" or "Halliwell's Guide". If you want to post a list, or a filmography, r.a.movies is unmoderated, and you can post it there. Now, if you wanted to do an "annotated filmography", that might be interesting. > >>>-- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead >> >> I don't see why this should be excluded. Because, it jams up the group, is inappropriate, and has another forum (r.a.m). If you post there, you are very likely to get a correct answer (eventually). Of course, a trip to the library would probably be just as easy. In short, I think that r.a.cinema was formed in reaction to certain things about r.a.movies that people thought were missing, and the charter reflects an emphasis on encouraging those things, and discouraging (read: disallowing) those things that were most distracting about r.a.m. But, the question is, how come no one is submitting articles?? I disagree that it has that much to do with the fact that there is a mod- erator. Many groups exist that are moderated, including r.a.m.reviews, which is active and probably has posts from most of the same pool of people who would write for r.a.c. I haven't posted myself for two reasons. The biggest one is just that I have been busy. In order to post on r.a.c I would want to work quite carefully on my piece, and I just haven't felt that I had the time. In addition, I supported r.a.c because I wanted to learn more about serious film criticism. I still feel that I lack the knowledge and insight to make an appropriate contribution, except perhaps on a few topics. (This latter fact is where the moderation issue may contribute, because some people who feel this way might be more willing to post if there weren't a moderator. However, I am glad that those people DON'T post. So, I encourage the continuation of moderation). Now, if these are the issues that are hindering most people (and there is no telling that they are), then I think the solution is to continue moderation, but to tone down the charter somewhat to encourage people who don't know so much, but who might have interesting insights, to post. By periodically posting this charter, both in r.a.c & r.a.movies, I would hope that more people would be attracted to the group, and would post. -- Steve Scher -- Steve Scher Program in Measurement and Affect 744 Ballantine Hall Indiana University Bloomington, In. 47405
curts@umriscc.isc.umr.edu (Mary Lynn Turner) (06/18/91)
I am glad to see that there is a group for _serious_ film discussions. I am a film student and will gladly participate in this group (when I have access to my fiance's acount). Mary Lynn Mary Lynn Turner (almost Schroeder) | curts@ee.umr.edu | Yavin, 4th moon | -- Rebel on the Run -- | | "Walk softly and carry a megawatt laser." - source unknown | | "Never drink downstream from a horse." - me |