HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slingo@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU ((Carol Slingo))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Subject: Re: Canadian movie
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:59:04 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
              "Ellen.Edgerton%SUADMIN.BITNET@AMERICAN.EDU" at Sep 29,
              92 12:26 pm

Thank you.

>
> JOURNEY INTO DARKNESS: THE BRUCE CURTIS STORY was a Canadian >TV-movie< made
> in 1991 (I think) and aired on NBC in 1992.  It won some Canadian TV awards,
> the equivalent of their Emmies, I think.  (It aired here under the name
> DEADLY BETRAYAL).
>
> A >good< movie.  About the Bruce Curtis case, where a Canadian student
> was involved in a New Jersey double murder.  The young actor playing the
> lead, Simon Reynolds, was excellent.
>
> Ellen Edgerton
> ebedgert@suadmin.syr.edu
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:49:20 -0400
From:         Ellen.Edgerton@SUADMIN.BITNET
Subject:      Sexism in films

I think it's kind of strange to denounce every best-picture-winning
film of the last 20 years or so as "sexist."  As another poster said
(sorry, I don't have quote-mode ability on my mail program), it's
an argument about how society SHOULD be vs. how it really IS.

However, it irks me just a little when I see even a popular, mindless
film (say, SNEAKERS) that relegates women to a cliched role.  SNEAKERS'
problem is that it's cliched more than "sexist" per se, but the
cliches themselves can be argued to be sexist.

Open question:  What makes a movie sexist?  Are there any cliches
we can identify, and maybe some that are going out of style, or
new ones?

Ellen
ebedgert@suadmin.syr.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:11:48 -0500
From:         Gary Graffagnino <ACCGSG@HOFSTRA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: SINGLES

>From: ACCNEWS@vaxc.hofstra.edu
>
>From: bc205z16@hofstra.bitnet
>Subject: SINGLES
>
>JUST SAW SINGLES...THE MOVIE WAS A LITTLE TOO GLOSSY (GOSH EVEN THE SOUNDTRACK
>WAS GLOSSY) DID ANYONE ELSE SEE IT? WHAT DID YOU THINK.

One might thing you were shouting by all of your capital letters :-)

Actually I rather enjoyed this movie.  I didn't read too much into it at the
time.  I just relied on the first impressions I got and I liked it.  It got a
little draggy in the middle, though.
                           ______
  Gary Graffagnino         \    /   "Look!  It Enrico Palatzzo!'
  accgsg@hofstra.bitnet     \  /
  accgsg@vaxc.hofstra.edu    \/            -Guy from the Naked Gun
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:49:15 EDT
From:         "DORIS--RM. 3876--X-3151" <CHAPPELLE@RSO.DNET.GE.COM>
Subject:      Help!

I did this once before, but can't remember how I did it.  Okay.  How do I
go about requesting a listing of all available Cinema-L subjects.  What are
the magic words that I am suppose to use?  Can someone out there help me?

Thanks,

Doris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:08:53 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      The Bash Street Kids...

>From: "(Ens Alexander W Ellermann)" <ellerman@NORFOLK.NADN.NAVY.MIL>
>
>     Fun fact:  They filmed the classroom scene in _Patriot Games_ in my
>building here at the Naval Academy & Harrison Ford came & spoke to my
>12-student literary criticism seminar about filmmaking for 45 minutes.  He's
>as nice a guy in person as he seems on screen.

In which case, the Costner-bashers will be lining up to have a go at him
as well... oops, they already did, didn't they, a while back..?

			Liam.
			====-
                                   *"I don't understand this, where is
     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   *   the Post Office?"
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England*"It's there, where it says `Post
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *   Office'.  I'm sorry if it's
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *   confusing..."
                                   *     -- Hutchinson & Basil Fawlty
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"cinema-l@auvm"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:05:00 EST
From:         MCINTYRE@MSUPA.BITNET
Subject:      turkey alert: _Cry of the Black Wolves_

Watched a real bad one last night, _Cry of the Black Wolves_.  It's a
Scandanavian version of a spaghetti western, a poor spaghetti western.
The picture just doesn't look good, the dubbing is bad, and the music
is so overdone as to drive you up the wall.

As an indication of just how bad this one is, the black wolves of the
title are played by German shepherds!

Stay away from this one, folks.

John McIntyre
Physics - Astronomy Dept
Michigan State University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Subject: Re: Merchant-Ivory films
From: george@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (George Ma)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:06:26 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

It's good to hear that Merchant Ivory manage to perform so well at the
box office; hopefully they will continue to produce excellent films.
I wonder who gets all the profits though, if not the actors?

Anyway, one of you asked for a list of their films. I asked this a little
while ago on rec.arts.movies and received the following list. Enjoy!

P.S. you might also like to know that one Robert Emmet Walsh wrote a book
recently called 'The Films of Merchant Ivory', up to and including A Room
With A View, with tons of pictures and their story. I've yet to get it
(the local library has a copy but it'll take a while... :-( ).

cheers, mark.


----begin included message-----

 From: "Two days and a wake-up... 30-Aug-1992 2009" <boyajian%ruby.enet.dec.com@cs7>
 Subject: Re: Merchant Ivory films
 Apparently-To: mnor1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz

Here's a list of all films directed by James Ivory. Whether they were
all done with Ismail Merchant, I don't know. Information comes from
FILM DIRECTORS: A COMPLETE GUIDE [Eighth International Edition, 1990].

1963  The Householder
1966  Shakespeare Wallah
1969  The Guru
1970  Bombay Talkie
1972  Savages
1975  The Wild Party
1975  Autobiography of a Princess  [made for television]
1976  Sweet Sounds
1977  Roseland
1979  The 5:48  [made for television]
1979  Hullabaloo Over Georgia & Bonnie's Pictures
1979  The Europeans
1980  Jane Austen in Manhattan
1981  Quartet
1983  Heat and Dust
1984  The Bostonians
1986  A Room with a View
1987  Maurice
1989  Slaves of New York
1990  Mr. & Mrs. Bridge
1992  Howards End

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L%AUVM.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L%AUVM.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:49:00 CST
From:         NAME 'Helen Eberle' <EBERLEHB@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Movie music?

I remember seeing this mentioned before, but Danny Elfman's record
"Music for a darkened Theater" is a great collection.  The name of the
record might be wrong but it is basically correct.  Elfman has done
scores for many of Tim Burton's flicks.  The music does so much toward creating
 the proper moody in Burtons movies.  I have the cd and I like it.

Helen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:57:04 EST
From:         Bill Felty <BILL.FELTY@UKWANG.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Pretentious Banal Sexist

Michael,

    Speaking of being hit over the head with a sledgehammer.......practically
EVERY Oscar winning picture of the last 20 years is pretentious, banal,
overblown, and/or SEXIST in your opinion.  OK, I'll respect that.  But
perhaps you're reading a bit much into some of these films; or rather not
taking enough time to understand their perspective(s).  Chariots of Fire is
NOT 'Rocky with a British accent.'  And hey, I liked Ordinary People.  One
of the major themes behind the film is that these folks ARE pretentious and
not ordinary.  On that level it works as a wonderful film.

     I just think you're being a bit too negative, a bit too anti-Oscar.
Maybe you're just having a bad day........
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:42:01 -0400
From:         Ellen.Edgerton@SUADMIN.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Oscars

Yes, the Williams score winning that year (1989?) really bugged me.
However, that year also had one of the most nauseatingly cruel
Best Original Score snubs in Oscar history...the lack of even a
nomination for Patrick Doyle's score for HENRY V.  I mean,
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!  Did Williams >have< to get two nominations
that year?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-To: cinema-l@american.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"cinema-l@american.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:22:00 EDT
From:         Peter.Giordano@WILLIAMS.EDU
Subject:      husbands and wives

Anong the many pleasures in HUSBANDS AND WIVES are:

1- a nearly perfect cast
2- a rich, multi-layered, adult story
3- sensational camera work that draws you into the environment of the film
like never before - This film must be seen in a theater because it will
make absolutely no sense at all on a small screen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: cinema-l@auvm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"cinema-l@auvm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:18:32 -0500
From:         CDOMS@UMKCVAX1.BITNET
Subject:      Good [BAD] Movies

We have had comments on the worst, z-grade, b movies on this list.  Howe
about movies that made it big, oscar winners or critically aclaimed, that
you thought were over-rated or hated?

For example, I did not like _Terms of Endearment_, although it won Oscars
(much to my dismay) and critical praise.  I thought it was contrived, I
didn't care much for the characters and why were at it lets give the
daughter a terminal illness (shades of _Love Story_). IMHO.

Other takers in the suppose to be Great Movie category?

Carol Doms
University of Missouri-Kansas City
cdoms@umkcvax1
cdoms@vax1.umkc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:16:42 BST
From:         Kerr Avon <lcc@WIN.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      _Empire Quiz_...

The new issue of _Empire_ comes out at the weekend, so I'll mail the
answers (along with the results) next week.  In the meantime here is
a little trivia question for you all to have a go at...

The films of which director grossed the most amount of money between
1985 and 1990?  That is which director grossed the most with his films,
between `85 and `90.  How much do you think the films made in total.

_Empire_ compiled a chart a few months ago of the top 10 directors by
gross, 1985-90.  Go on, have a guess...

			Liam.
			====-

     KERR AVON    |   Work: ICL,   * "Have a little patience, Vila."
 aka Liam Cairney |Reading, England* "What for?  All that ever gets
  All e-mail to:- | Home: Glasgow, *   you is older."
lcc@win.icl.co.uk |    Scotland    *     -- Cally & Vila (Blake's 7)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:20:52 -0500
From:         CDOMS@UMKCVAX1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Parodies in toonville

Just saw a parody from "Tiny Toons" on the famous shower scene from
_Psycho_.  Starring Elmira as the "killer" with a bath brush, washing
the poor "victum" of Dizzy Devil (or what ever the little Tazmainian devil
is called)

Carol Doms
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:52:00 -0400
From:         Ellen.Edgerton@SUADMIN.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Danforth Quale

I don't think you understand...Dan Quayle is considered by many to be
a national joke.  They publish >books< of his wacky quotes.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:43:00 EST
From:         AMBLY@CLUST1.CLEMSON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Irish Music/Five Heartbeats

John:  The songs in the 'Heartbeats' were written especially for the movie,
and no, the actors did not sing the songs.  The lip synch were pretty good.
Of the actors, only one of the 'Heartbearts' was a singer (I can't remember
which one).  Also, the girl who played Townsends singing sister also was a
bonified singer.  To my knowledge, Stevie Wonder did not sing on the movie
soundtrack.  Incidentally, only one of the original songs made it onto the
pop charts while the movie ran in theatres, "Nights Like This, I Wish
Raindrops Would Fall."

Adrian
Clemson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:49:07 -0500
From:         JACKSOSM@VUCTRVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: RE:UNFORGIVEN

Subj:   RE:UNFORGIVEN


>SPOILER......................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>    Like you, I loved the movie--think it is perhaps the best US film I
>have seen in the last twelve months.  And like you, I had a couple of minor
>quibbles.  I was not concerned about the extent of markings on the
>prostitute's face.  She was clearly scarred, and I did not find it odd
>that Clint could recognize her.  For me it was not necessary that she be
>made to appear hideous.  In fact, I found the degree of scars not only
>realistic but symbolic--beauty and human dignity remaining despite the
>horror that has scarred and marked one.
>    Like you, however, I was somewhat troubled by the sudden return of
>Clint's ability to shoot--and the restoration of his reflexes, which the
>earlier portion of the film suggests have been damaged by age.  I found
>it even less realistic that this return took place after he was wounded and
>after he returned to the bottle after years of abstaining.  The film did
>something to address the reflexes question with the sheriff's speech to
>the reporter--doesn't matter how quick you are but how carefully you aim.
>But I wasn't entirely satisfied by this--although, like you, I loved the
>movie.
>Currie Thompson

Judged by the narrow confines of neo-realism, the climactic scene in
which Munney (sp.?) guns down a saloon full of "bad" guys is dubious.  The
essential truth of this film plays upon the ambiguity of good and evil.
To me, Munney's restored gunfighter skills reinforces the mythical
quality of the story.  It is the dark side of "Shane" done in film
noir.  It may not be good journalism, but it is mighty effective
filmmaking.

j-man

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: from SUNY College at Oneonta, NY 13820
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: FISHERKJ
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:19:46 -0400
From:         FISHERKJ@SNYONEVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bell, Book, and Candle

>There were
>so many similarities between Kim Novak's character and Elizabeth
>Montgomery's, not to mention Jimmy and the Dicks (York and Sargent).
>Maybe even knowing which came first would help me out.

BB&C was 1958ish, Bewitched was early-60ish. Hope that, uh, helps.

I saw BB&C for the first and only time in a drive-in in the Catskills
in the late 50s. All I can remember is the look on Jimmy Stewart's
face when Hermione Gingold makes him drink that bowl of orange glop.

kjf-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:43:35 CDT
From:         C444307@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Good [BAD] Movies

>Respected movies that aren't that good: I would vote for MOST of the Oscar-
>winners, going back to the beginning.  But instead of listing all of them, I
>will stick with the last twenty years:
>
>1973 -- THE STING (nice entertainment but Best Picture?  Also, it is sexist)
>1975 -- ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (Nicholson at his best.  But the film
>        is highly schematic and simplistic, and EXTREMELY sexist)
>1976 -- ROCKY (trite, unbelievable, sexist)
>1978 -- THE DEER HUNTER (pretentious, overblown, confused, sexist)
>1979 -- KRAMER VS. KRAMER (Good acting, but banal and sexist)
>1980 -- ORDINARY PEOPLE (pretentious, sexist)
>1981 -- CHARIOTS OF FIRE (Rocky with a British accent)
>1982 -- GHANDI (pompous, stiff, LONG)
>1983 -- TERMS OF ENDEARMENT (it wasn't even good at the time)
>1984 -- AMADEUS (what's the point?)
>1985 -- OUT OF AFRICA (pretentious, aimless, Redford without a <needed>
>        British accent)
>1986 -- PLATOON (Unless you like being hit over the head with a sledgehammer)
>1987 -- THE LAST EMPEROR (What is this about?)
>1988 -- RAINMAN (Hoffman and Cruise are great, but a VERY patronizing film.
>        Also sexist)
>1989 -- DRIVING MISS DAISY (patronizing and very ordinary)
>1990 -- SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (admittedly, quite different from most of these
>        others, but still overrated psychobabble.  Definitely NOT sexist, I
>        think.  But homophobic.  Also, made me want to vomit)
>
>Of Oscar winners in the past 20 years, this leaves: THE GODFATHER (1972),
>THE GODFATHER II (1974), both of which I am sure plenty of people find
>overrated, but which I still think constitute a great American popular epic;
>ANNIE HALL (1977), which has certainly dated, but which is still something
>of a landmark.
>
>I won't even go into such Best Picture winners of the past as AROUND THE WORLD
>IN 80 DAYS (1956), THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH (1952), A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
>(1966), IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967 -- the year of BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE
>GRADUATE), OLIVER (1968), and, hold onto your hats, THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965).
>

If there are pieces of sexism in culture, and then
these pieces are then depicted in either stories or
characters of a movie,  should a movie then be
slammed as being sexist?

Just curious

Joe Daus   U of MO-Columbia
C444307@MIZZOU1.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 11:22:48 PDT
From:         Jennifer Porro <BL.JMP@RLG.BITNET>
Subject:      M MacDonald?

REPLY TO 09/30/92 09:48 FROM CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET "Discussions on all forms of
Cinema": Re: Husbands and Wives

Has anyone noticed?  There have been no postings from Michael
MacDonald in a LONG time.  During the summer, I just figured he was on
vacation or doing research abroad.

Michael, are you there?  Or did you fulfill your threat and
unsubscribe from the list?

Anyone know?

Jennifer

To:  CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:14:56 BST
From:         "(John Smyth)" <eeijsh@EEIUC.ERICSSON.SE>
Subject:      Last of the Mohicans

Jeff writes :
>I saw LAST OF THE MOHICANS this weekend.  A *wonderful* film, translation or
>no.  I've never gotten all the way through that or any other Cooper novel,
>but this film has got to be at least a successful independent creation. What
>strikes me on first response is that filmmaker Michael Mann has managed to
>retain a full-fledged mood of historical romance not by embellishing the movie
>with baroque ornamentation of diction, plot and just plain stateliness of
>pace (some of which I vaguely remember can be attributed to the experience of
>reading Cooper now), but by going for clean lines and swiftness.  That's an
>impression I can't be more exact with at the moment; but the film, despite
>the fact that it moves, does not seem hurried or breakneck like your typical
>contemporary thriller that means to blow you away.

Is Michael Mann the director responsible for Manhunter and Miami Vice ?

    John Smyth
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: from SUNY College at Oneonta, NY 13820
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: FISHERKJ
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:57:42 -0400
From:         FISHERKJ@SNYONEVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: GOOD [bad] MOVIES

>The film's juxtaposition of the Huron's future
>annihilation at the hands of their enemies (Iroquois ?) following their
>mass conversion to Christianity is sufficient ground to at least ponder
>if there is, indeed, a causal relation.

Agreed.The juxtaposition seemed to do exactly that. My argument
(and the Kempis quote) were directed at RDC,SJ's suggestion that
the filmmakers intended that the bad outcome be *blamed* on the
blackrobes. I don't think such a studiously ambivalent film would
want us to assume that -- and I recall nothing in the film that
*blames* anything on anybody, even implicitly. BLACK ROBE's story
has a familiar, classic shape: the journey upriver, toward the
imponderable. And nobody, from Conrad to Kubrick &Clark to Coppolla,
has ever found easy answers and pat solutions  when they arrived.

>I hope I don't sound like I'm grinding an axe.

Not especially. But wouldn't you rather have a sharp axe?

kjf-
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
From: jrs2r@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (James R. Self)
Subject: Re: Colorization--legal requirements
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:02:50 GMT

>In article <01GP9BDUBX5C8WW6U0@WILLIAMS>
>Peter.Giordano@WILLIAMS.EDU writes:
> 
>>
>>The policy of requiring colorizers to deposit a perfect copy of the
>>Black & White film was explained to me by Ralph Oman, the Registrar of
>>Copyrights - I guess it cam be found in the Code of Federal Regulations -
>>But according to Ralph - It's required for any colorized film
> 
   My understanding is that this requirement only applies to the 
seventy-films which are listed in the National Film Registry.
According to the Federal Register (1989:6553):  If a film is
colorized or otherwise materially altered, it must carry a label
stating that it has been changed without the participation of the
principal director, screenwriter, and other creators of the original
film.
  
    The 75 films in the National Registry are listed in the Federal
Register:  1989:49311, 1990:52845, 1991:49414.
   

Jim Self
University of Virginia
internet: self@Virginia.EDU

--
Jim Self
University of Virginia
internet: self@Virginia.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: cinema-l@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"cinema-l@auvm"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:33:58 -0500
From:         PHARRIS@UMKCVAX1.BITNET
Subject:      a question

I ran across a movie on HBO while I was in New York City over Easter. It
was about a teenage guy making it big on an American Bandstand-type Tv
show in the sixties. Could anyone tell me the name of the show? I didn't get to
see the end of it and I enjoyed what I saw. It didn't have any big named
people in it (as far as I know). Is it available on tape? ETC.....
Thanx.
Paul.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:44:01 -0400
From:         Ellen.Edgerton@SUADMIN.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Oscars

Well, my dream director is still one who would be incapable of
making a good movie without a good script.  :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU