Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cfa203!thakur
From: chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: More Posts
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.064330.11796@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 91 06:43:30 GMT
References: <1991Jun9.064801.11064@zerkalo.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Reply-To: chris@sloth.bc.ca (Chris Brougham)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: sloth prince george, b.c.
Lines: 85
Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu


> 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