Xref: utzoo news.groups:16188 rec.arts.movies:28140
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REVISED CHARTER for rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <5202@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 90 18:40:42 GMT
References: <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> <50483@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 28

In article <50483@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>
>The easy answer to these questons is to do what the serious "cinema"
>journals started to do in the 70's -- include tv & video without any
>constraints. Personally, I would be very happy to see this happen.
>However, I suspect that that's a minority opinion. Anyone else feel
>this way? If not, how do you propose to distinguish movies from tv
>shows? 

I'm on your side, Richard.

Cinema is motion pictures; pictures that move.  It doesn't
matter where they are shown or what production company makes
them or how much money they spent per second of action.

I'd probably cringe and vomit at a discussion of blocking
of characters in Gilligan's Island relative to their
importance to that week's episode, but I'd never snub it
merely over its medium.  Discussions of scheduling and the
careers of its stars I wouldn't brook, but if you have
something to say about the noticeable cinematic differences
between its B&W and In Color eras, then I'm (nearly) all
for it.

				--Blair
				  "But be kind enough to supply
				   the barf bags if you do start
				   discussing such things, would you?"