From: owen (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2008 - 19:14:58 PDT
watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiisgBmf5yI
On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Jake B. wrote:
> Are you even reading the messages you're responding to? Fred has
> just made an excellent point (one of the few on this list within the
> last few days) and you're making a complete fool of yourself. This
> is getting ridiculous! Let's talk about movies!
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Cari Machet <email suppressed>
> To: email suppressed
> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2008 3:15:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RULES was Re: FramWorks, Obama, Satantango, politics,
> etc.
>
> hello
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Jonathan Walley
> <email suppressed> wrote:
> Cari (and everyone),
>
> The constitution and bill or rights protects us from the government.
> We're talking about the rules of this list, which is not a
> government institution (thank god). If "rules" sounds to
> "controlling," then maybe a better way to think about it is in terms
> of expectations people have about then purpose of this list, which
> was explicitly set forth by the people who created it. It seems
> reasonable to expect that the conversations on this list are going
> to be about experimental film and not other things, though of course
> there are always grey areas, as others have rightfully pointed out.
>
> read what i wrote to fred and maybe you will get logic
> and understand more of the way real life actually works
> it is not compartmentalized in tinie little tight ass boxes
> organized to the death
>
>
>
> You're right that if you don't like the posts on this list you can
> avoid reading them, or read them and then ignore (not respond to)
> them. But this list is a community of members with widely varying
> opinions, beliefs, backgrounds, etc., and the list benefits from
> people expressing themselves, INCLUDING about whether or not certain
> topics are appropriate for the list. There is a distinction between
> voicing an opinion and controlling/censoring someone, and you're
> conflating the two here. You can disagree with someone's position,
> but immediately inflating people's complaints about political
> content to the level of control, censorship, and oppression seems
> extreme, especially when nobody on this list can control what anyone
> else writes.
>
> oh they try and
> i am not conflating them
> i just don't think it is productive for people to whine about crap
> when they could obviously just meander down the road
> and i hate when others are oppressive it sucks the life out of
> everyhting
> AND it is boring
>
>
> Finally, I don't get the anti-academic sentiment. As an academic
> myself, I know there are some bad professors out there. I'm sorry if
> you've had bad experiences in academia, because as a teacher of both
> film studies and production I aim to create precisely the opposite.
> But to equate academics as a group with control, lack of
> inclusiveness, being boring, is unfair. There have been some artists
> who held beliefs I'm sure you wouldn't like (you mentioned the
> futurists in a recent post - they were fascists after all), but I
> wouldn't generalize about all artists from those few. There are
> plenty of academics on this list who keep things lively.
>
> you don't get it - right
> i see that
> academic does not mean 'school'
> how many times do i have to write that on this list???????
>
> here:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ac·a·dem·ic (ăk'ə-dĕm'ĭk)
> adj.
> Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of
> higher learning.
> Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than
> technical or vocational.
> Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
> Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
> Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See
> synonyms at pedantic.
> Based on formal education.
> Formalistic or conventional.
> Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention.
> See synonyms at theoretical.
> Having no practical purpose or use.
> n.
> A member of an institution of higher learning.
> One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> umn some words in the english language have a broader scope than
> just one meaning
> what i meant was number 6 oh and number 4 oh and click on the link
> to 'pedantic' it applies nicely
> by the way i am somewhat a product of school - i have degrees and
> crap but i also have my own very own self
> and very own life - ya know what i mean?
>
> c
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Walley
> Assistant Professor, Cinema Department
> Denison University
> Granville, Ohio 43023
> http://www.denison.edu/academics/departments/cinema/jwalley.html
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
>
> you can make a post about green sox if you want as far as i am
> concerned
> BECAUSE
> there is a reason in the constitution of the united states
> written oh in the 1700's
> and amended to include the bill of rights later
> was inclusive of freedom of speech
> wonder why those crazy white guys would give a crap about that?
> the ones in power now seem to understand just how crazy they were
>
> believe it or not
> (as there are way too many boring - academic - repetitively
> rehashing old crap films in the supposed experimental film world)
> experimental film is an inclusive genre of art/film
>
> if you don't like the posts in a given subject use your civil rights
> to not read them
>
> control freakism is boring and lifeless
> unfortunately some people are interested in such things
>
> c
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:41 AM, James Cole <email suppressed>
> wrote:
> "But surely 'rules' 'from above' are antithetical to experimental
> film."
>
> Can I make a post about the Red Sox, then? Dustin Pedroia is really
> swinging a big stick as of late.
>
> I guess I don't really see how there can be any debate about whether
> or not this is germane to the list. Does anyone here think Obama
> knows who Joyce Wieland is?
>
> I signed up for a list on the discussion of experimental film. In
> the last few months, I've gotten that thing about joining some
> social networking site, something asking me to send money to
> Nigeria, and now political propaganda. Does any of this really wall
> under the category of "subversive," Jack? I mean, hell, I wouldn't
> want to receive emails about the new Coen Brothers movie, and I
> certainly didn't give out my email so I could be subject to campaign
> material. Certainly I don't think any of the people who "broke" the
> rules should be kicked off the list or put in jail or anything (that
> would indeed be "absurd"); but a whole mess of people gave out their
> private email addresses so they could receive discussion about
> experimental film, not so they could get information about
> Democrats, Republicans, Lyndon Larouche, etc. It would be nice if
> people were respectful of that.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Jack Sargeant <email suppressed>
> wrote:
> Rules?
> If we are going to follow rules (absurd) then surely "subversive"
> would
> cover at least some political statements.
>
> But surely 'rules' 'from above' are antithetical to experimental
> film.
>
> Jack
>
> > There are supposed to be rules about this list -
> > http://www.hi-beam.net/fw.html
> >
> > Frameworks is "an international forum on experimental film,
> avant-garde
> > film, film as art, film as film, or film as visual poetry; film's
> > expressive qualities, aside from or in addition to its storytelling
> > capacity. Any genre of experimental film, such as film diary, found
> > footage, abstract, flicker, lyric, subversive, expanded, etc.,
> can be
> > discussed, as well as those films which fall into the cracks
> between the
> > genres, or those not covered by other lists.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
>
> --
> cari machet
> nyc 347-610-5199
> AIM carismachet
> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
>
> --
> cari machet
> nyc 347-610-5199
> AIM carismachet
> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.