From: Jonathan M Hall (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Mar 31 2009 - 03:11:44 PDT
For those planning a visit to Tokyo in the next few months, including
those who might attend the Society for Cinema and Media Studies
Conference in May, allow me to mention a new exhibition at MOMAT
(National Museum of Modern Art Tokyo). If you're familiar with
experimental film and video, most of the names will be unsurprising,
but it could be a good opportunity to see some canonical work and
discover one or two things you've not yet seen.
"Waiting for Video: Works from the 1960s to Today" runs from 31 March
to 7 June. The work focuses in part on connections between 16 mm
film and video work and covers from the mid 1960s and 70s through to
now. It features well known pieces by such names as Francis AlFrom email suppressed Tue Mar 31 07:42:21 2009
Return-Path: <email suppressed>
Received: from lsvsm-m02.elist.aol.com (lsvsm-m02.elist.aol.com [64.12.187.202])
by addr34.addr.com (8.12.11/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id n2VEgLh3078504
for <email suppressed>; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LISTSERV.AOL.COM (lserv-m02.elist.aol.com [64.12.95.91])
by lsvsm-m02.elist.aol.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2VEeBsU024001;
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:40:48 -0400
Received: by LISTSERV.AOL.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id
134324007 for email suppressed; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:39:35
-0400
Received: from blu0-omc4-s38.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s38.blu0.hotmail.com
[65.55.111.177]) by lserv-m02.elist.aol.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with
ESMTP id n2VEdZNb028532 for <email suppressed>; Tue, 31
Mar 2009 10:39:35 -0400
Received: from BLU146-W24 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s38.blu0.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:39:35 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_daf3019f-afb1-4e78-8324-ad224082092a_"
X-Originating-IP: [173.89.27.112]
Importance: Normal
References: <email suppressed>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2009 14:39:35.0187 (UTC)
FILETIME=[82E17630:01C9B20E]
Message-ID: <BLU146-(address suppressed)>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:39:35 -0400
Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sender: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
From: julie murray <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Airport X-Rays
To: email suppressed
In-Reply-To: <email suppressed>
Precedence: list
List-Help: <mailto:email suppressed?body=INFO FRAMEWORKS>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:email suppressed>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:email suppressed>
List-Owner: <mailto:email suppressed>
X-ADDRSPAMFilter: Passed
--_daf3019f-afb1-4e78-8324-ad224082092a_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mark=2C
I loved your story.
I have had a similar encounter with tsa personnel being utterly fascinated =
by the Bolex=2C amazed that it is so mechanical=2C is wind-up and uses film=
. They want to know how it works and to see inside. For once it doesn't fee=
l like a full-body-search.=20
The effects of strong x-ray can be useful=2C though. A roll that ended up b=
eing passed through airport x-ray machines three or four times and which I =
considered not processing=2C thinking it was surely doomed=2C actually came=
out looking nice. It lost a bit of contrast and seemed to be grainier=2C b=
ut it softened it in a way that=2C were I to try and engineer such an effec=
t=2C would have taken considerable effort. Checking in over and over again =
to achieve this=2C though=2C might be hard to explain to the policemen stro=
ng-arming hapless filmmaker off to the nearest airless chamber for=2C well=
=2C let's not go there.
Julie Murray
--- On Sun=2C 3/29/09=2C Mark Toscano <email suppressed> wrote:
From: Mark Toscano <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Airport X-Rays
To: email suppressed
Date: Sunday=2C March 29=2C 2009=2C 10:25 AM
=20
Hi Ken=2C
=20
Had no problems there myself recently.
=20
Ever since someone here suggested it a while ago=2C I've been flying with m=
y
film in a bag also containing a printout from the TSA website which says yo=
=3D
u
have the right to request a hand check of film. Haven't had to brandish it
yet=2C but it seems a good bet to me. And in general=2C when I've told sec=
urit=3D
y
folks it's motion picture film=2C they seem OK with the hand check. One ti=
me=3D
=2C
the guy still persisted and asked me what ASA=2C but I just told him someth=
in=3D
g
about motion picture film being differently sensitive or something like tha=
=3D
t=2C
and he was OK about it.
=20
A week and a half ago I flew out of Burbank=2C and had the amusing experien=
ce=3D
of
a few of the security guys being all into 16mm and asking to see my Bolex. =
=3D
One
of the guys even teaches part-time at the Art Center in Pasadena. Only in =
=3D
LA=2C
I'm sure.
=20
mark t
=20
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail=AE is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_03200=
9=
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
--_daf3019f-afb1-4e78-8324-ad224082092a_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt=3B
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
Hi Mark=2C<br>I loved your story.<br>I have had a similar encounter with ts=
a personnel being utterly fascinated by the Bolex=2C amazed that it is so m=
echanical=2C is wind-up and uses film. They want to know how it works and t=
o see inside. For once it doesn't feel like a full-body-search. <br>The eff=
ects of strong x-ray can be useful=2C though. A roll that ended up being pa=
ssed through airport x-ray machines three or four times and which I conside=
red not processing=2C thinking it was surely doomed=2C actually came out lo=
oking nice. It lost a bit of contrast and seemed to be grainier=2C but it s=
oftened it in a way that=2C were I to try and engineer such an effect=2C wo=
uld have taken considerable effort. Checking in over and over again to achi=
eve this=2C though=2C might be hard to explain to the policemen strong-armi=
ng hapless filmmaker off to the nearest airless chamber for=2C well=2C let'=
s not go there.<br>Julie Murray<br><blockquote><br>--- On Sun=2C 3/29/09=2C=
Mark Toscano <=email suppressed>=3B wrote:<br>From: Mark Toscano &=
lt=email suppressed>=3B<br>Subject: Re: Airport X-Rays<br>To: FRAMEWO=
email suppressed<br>Date: Sunday=2C March 29=2C 2009=2C 10:25 AM<br> <b=
r>Hi Ken=2C<br> <br>Had no problems there myself recently.<br> <br>Ever sin=
ce someone here suggested it a while ago=2C I've been flying with my<br>fil=
m in a bag also containing a printout from the TSA website which says yo=3D=
<br>u<br>have the right to request a hand check of film. Haven't had to br=
andish it<br>yet=2C but it seems a good bet to me. And in general=2C when =
I've told securit=3D<br>y<br>folks it's motion picture film=2C they seem OK=
with the hand check. One time=3D<br>=2C<br>the guy still persisted and as=
ked me what ASA=2C but I just told him somethin=3D<br>g<br>about motion pic=
ture film being differently sensitive or something like tha=3D<br>t=2C<br>a=
nd he was OK about it.<br> <br>A week and a half ago I flew out of Burbank=
=2C and had the amusing experience=3D<br> of<br>a few of the security guys =
being all into 16mm and asking to see my Bolex. =3D<br> One<br>of the guys =
even teaches part-time at the Art Center in Pasadena. Only in =3D<br>LA=2C=
<br>I'm sure.<br> <br>mark t<br></blockquote><pre> </pre><br /><hr />Hotmai=
l=AE is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. <a href=3D'htt=
p://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=3DTXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009' =
target=3D'_new'>Find out more.</a></body>
</html>=
<p>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
<p>
--_daf3019f-afb1-4e78-8324-ad224082092a_--