Xref: utzoo news.groups:16519 rec.arts.movies:28578
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!thakur
From: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- observations and revisions
Message-ID: <1990Jan17.213406.1706@eddie.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 21:34:06 GMT
References: <50608@bbn.COM> <1990Jan17.190304.23309@eddie.mit.edu>
Reply-To: thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 90


Another issue people have discussed is whether video and television
films should be discussed in rec.arts.cinema.

My feeling is that film and television/video are indeed related, but
they are two distinct media.  As an example, both cinema and the stage
share common characteristics (acting, lighting, direction, etc) and
yet retain their distinctive identities.  In the same way, film and
television are related -- perhaps even more so than film and stage --
but I feel they are still two distinct media.  So things that are
clearly films are appropriate for r.a.c., while those that are clearly
television or video are not.

What about the borderline cases?  I think they need to be handled on a
case by case basis.  Many a time filmmakers (particularly documentary
filmmakers like Frederick Wiseman) would prefer to have their films
shown in theaters, but cannot get commercial distribution.  In
addition, many respected filmmakers (Ingmar Bergman and Raul Ruiz, to
name two) have turned to television as a means of financing and
exhibiting their work.

So my feeling on these is that we should try to understand to the best
of our ability the *preference* and *intention* of those who had
creative control over the film.  If their stated preference or
discernable intention is for the film to be shown in theaters, then
the film is appropriate for r.a.c.

If their preference or intention is not readily discernable, then I
would have to play it by ear.  The information and arguments provided
by the author of the article -- as well as any reader feedback --
would play a large role in my decision.

Accordingly, I propose the following criteria for deciding whether a
television film is appropriate for rec.arts.cinema or not:

	-- Was the film exhibited *anywhere* in a theater?  If so,
	   then it automatically becomes appropriate for
	   rec.arts.cinema.
	-- If the film was not shown in a theater, can it be readily
	   demonstrated or discerned that those with creative control
	   over the film would have *preferred* to exhibit their film
	   in theaters?  Or can it be shown that they *intended* for
	   their film to be exhibited in theaters?  If so, then the
	   film is appropriate for rec.arts.cinema.
	-- If a film or show is clearly television, then does it have
	   any substantive relevance to cinema?  If so, then it is
	   appropriate for rec.arts.cinema.


Examples of television/video related subjects that WOULD be
appropriate for rec.arts.cinema:

-- An overview of Lucille Ball's career that examined her television
   work
-- How the growth of television led to the introduction of Cinemascope
   in the 1950s
-- Frederick Wiseman documentaries, which are always shot and edited
   on film and intended to be shown as films but get shown primarily
   on public television
-- The growing influence of television rights on theatrical filmmaking
   in many European nations, especially in light of the impending
   unification of Europe in 1992
-- Speculation on the impact of High Definition Television on
   filmmaking
-- Experiments with combining video and filmmaking techniques (such as
   Michelangelo Antonioni's 1982 film, THE MYSTERY OF OBERWALD)
-- The links between the rapid editing style of music videos and the
   experiments of Soviet avant-garde filmmakers in the 1920s.


Examples of topics that WOULD NOT be appropriate:

-- Outright television shows or serials that are not exhibited
   theatrically
-- Most direct-to-video films (individual exceptions are certainly
   possible, however)
-- The quality and content of music videos -- virtually every music
   video is shot on video and is shown on television
-- Films that were shot entirely on video and then blown up to film as
   an afterthought (such as the documentary COVER UP - BEHIND THE
   IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL -- it was patently obvious that even the
   credits of that film were done on video)
-- The works of video artists and television animators -- these belong
   in their own respective newsgroups


                                Manavendra K. Thakur
				thakur@eddie.mit.edu
                                thakur@cfa.harvard.edu
				...!harvard!zerkalo.harvard.edu!thakur