Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!cfa203!thakur From: steves@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Steve Scher) Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema Subject: Re: More Posts Message-ID: <1991Jun10.184357.12444@zerkalo.harvard.edu> Date: 10 Jun 91 18:43:57 GMT References: <1991Jun9.064801.11064@zerkalo.harvard.edu> <1991Jun10.064330.11796@zerkalo.harvard.edu> Sender: thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) Reply-To: steves@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Steve Scher) Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema Organization: Indiana University, Program in Measurement, Department of Sociology Lines: 115 Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu 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