Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.cinema: moderated or not?
Message-ID: <50824@bbn.COM>
Date: 12 Jan 90 15:13:12 GMT
References: <50437@bbn.COM> <5200@buengc.BU.EDU> <50487@bbn.COM> <5246@buengc.BU.EDU>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 45

In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In many ways, in _very_ many ways, rec.arts.cinema will be _very_
>much less broad than is r.a.m.  I personally will be concentrating
>on Renoir and Woody Allen (but damn you if you want a list... :-)).
>There are probably fewer than a hundred films that fit into anyone's
>categorization of serious cinema.


But remember that ANY MOVIE WHATSOEVER is fair game for this group.
The important point is that the articles be serious and substantive.
We made it explicit in the charter that we would not be restricting
ourselves to "art films".


>it.  I've written some long and rather involved postings to
>it on such things as Renoir's oeuvre and a rational,
>consistent interpretation of Tampopo.  They were ignored,
>but not any more than they would have been if they had been
>posted into rec.arts.cinema.


I hope that turns out to be untrue -- that's the whole point of the
proposal. If you post serious articles to r.a.c, and it stirs up as
little interest as such articles attract in r.a.m, I'll certainly be
disappointed. The group will be something of a failure in that case.



>Frankly, I don't understand your apparent need to
>denigrate rec.arts.movies.  There is no need to do so
>as justification of rec.arts.cinema.  Rec.arts.cinema
>is justified by its definition.  Throw off your insecurity
>and lets get on to the damn vote.


My rhetoric may have gotten carried away. I wasn't denigrating r.a.m,
I was pointing out its inadequecies because those inadequecies are the
strongest argument in favor of r.a.c (and, in my opinion, a strong
argument in favor of moderation as well). I had the distinct feeling
that you were missing this point. 1000 pardons if I misconstrued your
intent :-)

As for the vote, I think we should wait until the issues are as
settled as they're going to get. I don't want to call for a vote while
discussion is still active.