Xref: utzoo news.groups:15962 rec.arts.movies:27915
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups
Message-ID: <50137@bbn.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 89 14:52:36 GMT
References: <50113@bbn.COM> <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 60

In article <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes:
>From article <50113@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro):
>> [explanation of "classical" in the context of film history]
>If this is your definition then why not call it r.a.m.pre60?  If not,
>then the definition of "classical" will INEVITABLY change to include
>the early '70s in 10 years or so ("_The Godfather_, what a classic!"--
>someone in 1996).

As explained before, "classical" says nothing about the merits of a
movies. It refers to a particular set of formal and institutional
constraints. A movie cannot "become" classical - either it was made
that way or it wasn't. It's purely a descriptive term, not an
evaluative one. And it does NOT refer only to a time period (there are
many superb non-classical movies throughout the history of cinema).
PRE60 would be even more misleading than CLASSICAL -- the point was
not when it was made, but how it was made.


>If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is
>to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.).


No, genre is much too narrow of a focus and "foreign", while not a
genre and not overly narrow, is too provincial -- Swedish readers
don't regard Bergman's films as foreign-language. Classical is broad
enough to attract a sizable audience, but focused enough to keep from
getting out of hand.


However, having said all of that, I can see from this example that
"classical" will be problematic because of misunderstanding. To some
extent, the moderator can deal with this problem (she can write back
to the person who submits the article on _The Godfather_ and explain
why it's a post-modern movie rather than a classical one, for
instance). Or we could periodically repeat explanations of what
"classical" mean (in fact, I would expect some argument about what it
means, which is fine).

Or, perhaps the person who suggested "rec.arts.movies.forum" is on a
better track, and the discrimination should be strictly on the basis
of "seriousness" rather than historical/social context. The problem
with this is deciding what is serious and what isn't. Is the "Deckard
is/is not a replicant" discussion that pops up from time to time on
r.a.m serious? I would say it isn't, but it's a close call. Pointing
out continuity errors? Trivia, imho, and not so close of a call. Lists
of movies starring Eddie Albert? Definitely not serious (likewise
simple lists of movies made by Godard, or any other lists). But these
are just my opinions; others will disagree I'm sure.  This puts lots
of power in the hands of the moderator. But with a responsible
moderator, we could get some excellent wide-ranging discussions in
such a group.


This is all still in the "pre discussion" phase, remember. From the
looks of things, there is some interest in getting a new group (or
possibly a mailing list) for serious and extended film talk, which is
a good thing. If the consensus favors a more general format like
r.a.m.forum, I'm happy to shift the focus there. Perhaps it deserves
another "Call for Discussion" announcement, and we can let
r.a.m.classical slip away peacefully...