Xref: utzoo news.groups:16009 rec.arts.movies:27948
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!husc6!frooz!cfa250!thakur
From: thakur@cfa250.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Volunteer for rec.arts.movies.serious moderator/editor
Message-ID: <1812@zerkalo.cfa250.harvard.edu>
Date: 31 Dec 89 04:44:53 GMT
References: <50208@bbn.COM>
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA
Lines: 103

From article <50208@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro):

>   rec.arts.movies.serious
> 
> Anyway, let's forget the "classical" idea and the more general idea of
> fragmenting r.a.m and focus instead on discussing the merits of this
> proposal: a moderated group for serious/scholarly discussion of any
> and all movies. Moderation is essential here, I think, otherwise it
> will be no different from r.a.m. There are probably a few things we
> should exclude from the start: any kind of lists, contests, trivia,
> movie or actor identification, etc. On the other hand, we should NEVER
> exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone
> has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine.
> 
> If interested people agree that the group should be moderated, we need
> a moderator. Volunteers? I'm willing though not anxious (and possibly
> not able -- see below). Anyone else?

I belive such a newsgroup is an excellent idea.  I also think it for
it to work, it would need to be moderated.  I've been waiting for this
kind of newsgroup for a long time, and I very much would like to help
it succeed.

So... At the risk of overcommitting myself, I will volunteer to
moderate this newsgroup.  Or perhaps I could I moderate it in
conjunction with one or two other people.  (Having an editorial board,
as it were....)

As for my qualifications, I have posted a number of in-depth reviews
of films over the past two years, and all of these are available from
Evelyn Leeper (the moderator of rec.arts.movies.reviews).  People have
sent me email saying they didn't necessarily agree with what I had
written, but most of the letter-writers did think that my reviews made
interesting points and were well-written.  I have not posted anything
to the net in about six months, but I have continued writing reviews
for the MIT student newspaper.

In the past several months, I have concentrated mainly on expanding my
horizons by watching large numbers of films.  I saw 48 films in ten
days at the Toronto Film Festival this September, and I attended about
a dozen screenings at the New York Film Festival in October.  In
November, I covered the Jewish Film Festival here in Boston.  And, of
course, I've been attending screenings at local theaters all along
(usually 8-9 films a week).

In the past few years, I have had the chance to interview noted
directors such as Louis Malle, Jan Troell, and Henry Jaglom, and I've
also written articles about (for example) the state of American
cinema, compared the popularity of FIELD OF DREAMS to the success of
politicians like Ronald Reagan, as well as other articles related to
cinema as a whole.  (Not all of these were posted to the net, but I
can make them available to anyone who wishes to see them.)

I've worked as a projectionist at the Harvard Film Archive for more
than two years, during which I have been exposed to many many films
(and their directors) from around the world, with all their attendant
differences in point of view.

For the past three years, I have organized and conducted talks at MIT
during the January intersession about the use of music in films and
what a good score can do for a film.

As for writing and editing skills, I have been exposed to both good
and bad editors at the MIT student newspaper.  The worst editors were
the ones who couldn't care less about film as a medium of serious
study, and consequently did a large amount of casual rewriting of my
reviews, often over my loudly stated objections.  (One told me that
"kid sibling" was preferable over "kid brother or sister" because the
former is "more journalistic."  I just stared at him in disbelief.)

The best editors, to the other hand, cared about film, and they took
the time to sit down with me and work with me to improve the quality
of my articles.  If they didn't understand what I meant in a
particular passage, they would ask me to clarify and perhaps reprhase
or rewrite those passages.  If I did not want to change something,
they listened to my arguments and then made a judgment taking both my
concerns and their experience into account.  If I was really adamant
about something, they would usually let me have my way while making
sure that I understood the reasons for their objections.

Having gone through such experiences, as well as interacting with
Evelyn Leeper with rec.arts.movies.reviews, I have a good sense of
what a moderator/editor should be like.  Working with my fellow
reviewers at the newspaper on their own articles gave me additional
experience that I can rely on now.

I am very much devoted to thinking and writing about film as a medium
worthy of serious study.  I agree that such study should not be
limited to "art" films, although I do think that these so-called art
films are more likely to reveal interesting things if studied closely.
But film is a popular entertainment medium as well as an art form, and
I would like to see intellectually honest articles that address all
aspects of film, not just the ones that I personally am most
interested in.

Accordingly, I would be very grateful to have the opportunity to
moderate and edit this new newsgroup if it is created.  I think I have
a great deal to offer, and I would welcome the challenge of serving in
this capacity.

                                Manavendra K. Thakur
                                thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu
                                thakur@cfa.harvard.edu