HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 12:48:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Film beef on CBS News

> >Despite the extra footage, film critic Leonard Maltin says it's a bad idea,
> >because, I quote, "it's like re-painting a Van Gogh."  He goes on to state
> >that this sort of action takes away (or ruin) the original piece of work.
>
> Any number of novels, playscripts, and other texts are published in different
> editions or revisions. As long as the "original" is still available, what's
> the beef? Of course, this argument is often made to justify colorization, but
> in that case a third party is doing the tampering.

I think that's the deciding factor--I, for one, enjoy seeing the
original creator's afterthoughts.  Things like this have been
available in music for quite some time.  Beethoven's Op. 130
quartet has two last movements--recordings typically come with
both and let the listener decide (particularly well suited for
LP, since the two endings fit nicely on Side 2 with the rest on
Side 1).  There is a CD of the Brahms Violin Concerto that lets
you pick your cadenza.

Even if the afterthoughts aren't as good as the original, it's
nice to have the choice (without having to pay twice for the
privelege).

Best,
Peter

> kjf-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:46:00 CDT
From:         Becky Albitz 5-5931 <CADALBTS@UIAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Screen-L

Screen-L still exists, although its volume is not nearly as great
as Cinema-L.  It needs a few people really interested in film
theory, history, etc. to liven it up.  Do I hear any takers?

Becky Albitz
University of Iowa Libraries

> REPLY TO 07/27/92 07:12 FROM CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET "Discussions on all forms of
> Cinema": Re: Serious discussion of cinema
>
> Unless Screen-L has changed in the last six months, when I was a
> subscriber there weren't any discussions (or postings in fact)
> at all.  Occasionally people would write in asking why there was no
> activity on Screen-L and someone would suggest they subscribe to
> Cinema-L.        Jennifer Porro
>
> To:  CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:01:00 EST
From:         "Like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again!" <ACCDAK@HOFSTRA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Labels=censorship?

Isn't there something odd here about people modifying their "product" for
marketing purposes ,i.e., to make a buck?  If it's art someone's want's to
produce, or some personal statement will it be modified by labelling?

(I lived in the 60's but I never inhaled.  The resulting oxygen deprevation
is now obvious.)

I for one would not like to purchase a recording as a gift if the lyrics were
offensive to me because it reflects poorly on me.  Yes, I could research the
recording somehow, but it would be much easier and a whole lot more accurate
if I could read the lyrics.

Does the recording industry feel, not the hot breath of censorship, but the
potential for ridicule, when lyrics are published?  (By the way, what are the
first few words of the Beach Boys' "Help Me Ronda", or any whole verse of
"Louie, Louie"?  I'll give a genuine 1992 H. Ross Perot for President pin for
the answers.)

David   accdak@vaxc.hofstra.edu  // accdak@hofstra
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:21:00 EDT
From:         FISHERKJ@SNYONEVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Fisher, cultural illiteracy, stream-of consciousness

>And a man only reads what he is capable of reading?  Your mention of
>Faulkner and Joyce served mostly to show...

Still another jeremiad! What fun we're having.

Rick Francis' animadversions, unlike those of the Mad Anarchist,
have the virtue of syntactical, though not semantic, coherence --
so lets have a look.

>Your mention of Faulkner and Joyce served mostly to show
>that you have no business teaching undergrads *anything*
>about communicating with words.

Like I guess you're right 'n' stuff, you know? Like I guess
I'd feel better 'n' stuff if like somebody who, you know,
doesn't offhand and like cliche' mentions, you know, like Faulkner
 and -- by the way like Joyce who?? -- was to teach our, you know,
young persons and like perdaughters to, like you said, communicate
'n' stuff with whaddyacallem, words, okay?? I mean, like they talk
fine 'n' stuff, you know?

>...your incapacity to deal with literature, indicated by
>your offhand and cliche'-inaccurate allusion to Faulkner
>and Joyce, demonstrates a cultural illiteracy that qualifies
>you for nothing more serious in higher education than secretarial work.

I know lots of secretaries, and lots of perfessas. By and large,
the secretaries are smarter. I'd be proud to make an honest living
as a secretary -- but to my horror, the State of New York made me
a perfessa instead. We all must accept the hand fate deals us,
cliche' though it may be.

>Gads, you must be one of those who snicker at literature
>as the incoherent statement of ideas best expressed in
>the technical-writing style I assume you strive for.

I *never* snicker. I chortle ironically -- and I strive only
for perspicacity, though I admit my literary style is probably
incommensurate with the tendency of my pedagogical ambiance to
proliferate insoluble complexitites. I'm sure you agree.


>No real educator would take the snide, arrogant, tone you've adopted.

You misunderstand me tragically. I write these posts in a mood of
humility and self-abnegation that even a real educator would admire.

>And just whom do you suppose you're addressing?

I'm addressing youm.

>...I'll inherit the students you've mis-educated...

...as opposed to the "education" they've been subjected to so far?
Most of our upperclassmen couldn't *define* a sentence, much less
write one. They're good kids by and large -- but they're products
of an educational system that has suffered an almost complete collapse.
Does anyone seriously dispute this? If an "education" is what they've
gotten, I'm proud to be *mis*-educating them. I wear it like a badge --
to paraphrase our beloved though dumb V.P.

Sorry for the long post,
But I didn't have time to write a short one.

kjf-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Name: Christopher Mark Conn
Organization: SAS Institute Inc., Austin, Texas
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:09:23 CDT
From:         Christopher Mark Conn <sascmc@UNX.SAS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Shining Through
X-To:         cinema-l <cinema-l%auvm.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@unx.sas.com>
              23, 92 5:18 pm

>
> Joe,
> I rented _Shining Through_ this past week end.  It was a bit schmaltzy,
> required some willing suspension of disbelief, but I enjoyed it.  You
> may need to be forewarned, however, that my family likes to state that
> I've never seen a movie I didn't like.  They're wrong, of course.  If
> you enjoy Melanie Griffith or Michael Douglas, you will probably not
> regret renting it.
>

I liked it... good old fashioned WWII love story. It was really a lot
more interesting than the previews led me to believe. I found the
bombing scenes very intense.

Another good movie that I really liked from the same period was
_Hope and Glory_. It's about a British family in England during the
same period and how they cope with being bombed day after day. Check
it out if you get a chance.

  ___                          ___
//               ||\  /|     //
||               || \/ |     ||
\\___ hristopher ||    | ark \\___ onn                       sascmc@unx.sas.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dead Runners Society
PO Box 202292 Austin, Texas 78720-2292 (512) 258-5171 X3369 FAX: (512) 258-3906
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:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:56:00 EDT
From:         Peter.Giordano@WILLIAMS.EDU
Subject:      kjf = dick cavett
X-To:         CINEMA-L@american.edu

kjf is the Dick Cavett of Cinema-L - I note with interest the insulting
way he describes his students - imagine paying tution to listen to this
guy.
Sorry folks but it's late at night (at least late for me)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:38:20 EDT
From:         John <JBC@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reel Conversations
              22 Jul 1992 20:42:37 -0400 from <lhb6v@FARADAY.CLA
              S.VIRGINIA.EDU>

> You could
>argue just as much that STAR WARS saved the industry, by increasing
>the audiences and bringing profits to the studios that allowed
>'personal' movies to get made.

The key question is, how many movies does Hollywood make these days?
My understanding is that it's far fewer than before 1977, when I
believe the studios were producing 200+ movies annually.  Does anyone
have numbers of Hollywood releases per year for the last 30 years.
These days they put all their eggs in a few no-risk baskets and
we don't get the variety we had 20 years ago.

>also a picture that it's easy to say 'I'll catch it on video.'
>while epics and special effects blockbusters are the things the
>big screen does uniquely well.
>
Special effects blockbusters are fun while they last but what do you
take home with you? A big zero.  I'd just as soon save the money I'd
spend watching two of them and buy a ticket to Busch Gardens and ride
the new hi-tech roller coasters all day long.  It's the same thing
except the roller coaster is a little more immediate, tangible, REAL.
Meanwhile, with all the special effects monstrosities around the chance
that Hollywood will produce another Citizen Kane or Dr. Strangelove or
They Shoot Horses, Don't They is considerably lessened (not destroyed,
lessened).  Special effects are great--I'll see movies like 2001, Close
Encounters..., the original King Kong, over and over again--but not when
they're center stage.  Special effects should be servants not masters.

>My cynicism monitor always goes off when I hear elegiac tributes to how
>today is just a dim shadow of the days of wine and roses. What golden
>age?

The early 60's were something of a low point in Hollywood.  Things really
took off in 66 and 67 with ...Virginia Woolf, Bonnie and Clyde, The
Graduate, In Cold Blood.  The late 60's through the mid 70's were a mini-
golden age...lots of talent, lots of variety, great gangster movies, great
musicals, great little films, lots of hungry young directors like
Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg...also Kubrick, Penn, Peckinpah, Altman.
>concept' was invented in the eighties.)
>
>Unless my reading has deeply decieved me, between the rise of cable and
>video and the opening and multiplication of the European airwaves, the
>market has vastly expanded over the last ten years, which means more
>money and more niches for everyone.  In fact, a piece I was reading

I agree with you here.  I think signs have been hopeful in recent years
There may be just as many or more movies worth watching coming out now
as during the early 70's.  It's just that there not coming from
Hollywood.
John
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:54:58 CDT
From:         C444307@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      Shining Through

I debate whether or not to rent this one out.
Any thoughts on this one.  Thanks in advance.

Joe Daus   U of MO-Columbia
c444307@MIZZOU1
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:08:00 EDT
From:         FISHERKJ@SNYONEVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Star Wars mentality

> ...if it weren't for a handful of artists with enough clout
>to get their work financed ... and the many lesser-known or
>up-and-coming independents ...  there wouldn't be anything
>American worth watching.

True, I'd say ... but hardly a post-Star-Wars phenomenon.
Has there ever been a time when we didn't rely on a handful
of bright lights to supply all the good stuff? Were there
much more than a handful of genuine artists at any given
time before 1977? Not to my recollection.

Remember Theodore Sturgeon's Rule: 98% of everything is crap.

This applies across the board, democratically, to literature,
theatre, cinema, TV, music, dance, etc. etc. But it's the
mass media that take the rap, because bad stuff and good stuff
alike are paraded constantly before us...not tucked away in
a gallery or a shop.

>The rating system didn't ruin Hollywood...it was Star Wars.

Hollywood is always being ruined by something, the same way
Broadway is always "dying." Yet they survive, and even manage
to please us every now and then.

kjf-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: from SUNY College at Oneonta, NY 13820
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:48:00 EDT
From:         ERICSOPM@SNYONEVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Serious discussion of cinema

Tanya in Atlanta,

You write that kjf is not "contemporary" when he mentions Barthes, Bazin,
and Levi-Strauss. I am not sure what to make of this, and I hope you write
in more detail on the subject. Forgive me if you were only quoting someone
else, but I seem to hear you saying that criticism that is not contempoary
is somehow less...what? serious? valid? worthy of consideration? If so, is
this true of art as well as criticism? Arguably, neither form is
sui-generis, but built on what has gone before. Criticism of Rhetoric and
Theatre still goes back to Aristotle, who, though far from contemporary,
said much that is still of interest.

You also say it is time to determine the original focus of this list.
Here is the full statement of purpose from the listowners:

This list is dedicated to the discussion of all forms of cinema, in all
its  aspects. Its  founding is  based  on the  understanding that  most
people who watch  and enjoy movies do so from  a variety of viewpoints,
and  that  a  general,  unlimited  forum  is  desirable  for  both  the
integration  and  expansion  of   cinematical  ideas,  techniques,  and
understanding.  Therefore, all  topics  having to  do  with cinema  are
welcome,  including  but  not  limited  to:  composition,  performance,
watchine; research, critique, inquiry,  advocacy; and anything else you
can think  of. If  a topic is  running that you  have something  to say
about,  or  to  question,  jump  in. If  you  have  something  entirely
different in mind, start up  another thread. Movies are universal. With
the advent of electronic communications, so are we.

Phil
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:47:00 EDT
From:         "Mike.Simmons" <20676MES@MSU.BITNET>
Subject:      The Star Wars mentality

John....
You write that -STAR WARS- ruined Hollywood.  I disagree.  SW as a movie,
entertainment, a genre, an art form is hard to beat.  I would feel this way
even if it flopped at the boxoffice, however, as we all know it didn't.
Economics is the reason post SW movies lack that certain something (art?) you
talk about. People, (directors, producers) are money motivated.  They are
simply giving us what we pay the most for.  The majority of people do not go
to foreign films or avant garde theater and the more dramatic films with less
special effects and glitz do not make as much money at the boxoffice.  People
like to make lots of money!  As for the few who are making movies of the
caliber you consider worthy I too applaud them and enjoy the fruits of their
work (especially Demme and Lynch), however, I feel there is room for all.
Great movies will always shine amidst the schlock.
Mike.
MSU.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: cinema-l@auvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"cinema-l@auvm"
X-VMS-Cc: CLERC
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 10:23:00 EST
From:         CLERC@GENESEO.BITNET
Subject:      Goodbye (was RE: Serious discussion of cinema)

From: LLFW%UTXDP.BITNET@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU

>I think it's nice to have the list as diverse as
>possible.  The people who have been responding have kept me very amused
>(the PABLM idea was hilarious) and very informed for the past few weeks,
>and I would be disappointed if the list became too severely restrictive
>in the kinds of responses it has been receiving.

Felicia,

        I agree that it would be a pity if Cinema-L became a forum for
only one kind of discussion. bturner's essays of a few months back were
as essential to the list as discussions of which movie Bob Dylan had a
cameo in and I would hate to see either type of post eliminated.

        I also thank you, on behalf of PABLM, for your support. In an
effort to assess the current slate of nominees, I will be spending the
entire month of August off-line. While engaged in this tedious, monotonous
task (no price is too high when serious film studies are at stake), I will
try to learn more about montages, jumpcuts, mise-en-scene, the auteur theory,
and the correct spelling of Roland B*. From the sublime to the ridiculous,
if you see what I mean.

        See you in September,


                Sue
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: from SUNY College at Oneonta, NY 13820
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:07:00 EDT
From:         ERICSOPM@SNYONEVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Cuts on TNT

>But surely, removing frames should have the same effect as speeding
>the film up?  If a person is walking along, and every nth frame is
>removed, his movement should appear unnaturally quick (and possibly
>jumpy).

Look closely at the next movie you rent...every fourth frame on
the video is repeated, so the pattern is 1-2-3-4-4-5-6-7-8-8 etc.

Film runs at 24 frames per second, video at 30 fps. Duping every
fourth frame twice compensates for the difference. The audio is
adjusted accordingly.

The point is that our eyes don't notice the difference, even at
that high rate of repetition. Taking out every tenth or twelfth or
twentieth frame to shorten the running time is also completely
invisible to the viewer. The tricky part is shortening the audio
without changing the pitch -- but a smart computer can do this easily.

This is quite common -- Turner is not the only one doing it.

Subcutaneously,
kjf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CLERC
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:17:00 EST
From:         CLERC@GENESEO.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Labels and censorship

>Sue, my comments about hair, food and smokes were to kjf.  I believe the
>first part of my post responded to something you said and then I added to
>that by mentioning an earlier post, yes, not yours.
>
>It was the grander "you" than just you, Sue.

        Well, I'm honored to be in the grand company of kjf. What
confused me was your inclusion of only my post and exclusion of
any mention of kjf.

                                Sue
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, 31 Jul 1992 11:07:36 -0500
From:         MARCI HENDRIX <HENDRIX@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Multi-Spoiler

The Wizard of Oz -- and I thought you were talking TV -- Dallas -- the
year it was all a dream (which I predicted to everyone's unbelief).  Just
so you know, those Dallas days of mine have long been over, except I did
sit and waste 2 hours watching the final pathetic episode.

Marci Hendrix
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:50:35 PDT
Comments:     Resent-From: "A.J. Wright" <MEDS002@UABDPO>
Comments:     Originally-From: Buryl <BWOODAR1@UA1VM.BITNET>
Comments:     Resent-From: Joan Crenshaw <3714P@NAVPGS>
Comments:     Originally-From: "A.J. Wright" <MEDS002@UABDPO.BITNET>
From:         Joan Crenshaw <3714P@NAVPGS.BITNET>
Subject:      Tipper and Co.

AJ,
   I agree with you, parenthood changes a lot of things!  I am truly amazed
at how straight-arrow I am when it comes to what my son can watch.  And I
shudder at a lot of what I see/hear.

>Well, back in the days of my stupid youth I used to have this same contemp-
>tuous attitude toward the Tippers of the late sixties and early seventies
>(anybody remember Spiro T. Agnew?), but now that I'm in my stupid middle age
>a different perspective is starting to seep into the addled brain...I think
>it has something to do with having kids and turning into one's parents...
>you really start to ask yourself how to protect your eight and four year old
>from all the cultural garbage swirling around that our parents didn't have to
>worry about..
   I hear my mother in my voice more than ever and I'm scared about so much tha
t my son will face that I never had to, like AIDS.

>So what's the answer, metalhead? I like the first amendment as
>well as anyone; I just wish some of this stuff wasn't so hard to defend, ya'
>know? I've always been a 1st amend. purist and plan to remain so, but I sure
>can understand where the Tippers are coming from...maybe we should have a
>little less contempt and a little more dialog with "those" people, ya' know?

   I agree with you 100%.  I appreciate your putting it so much better than I
could.  Some of the stuff makes me sick too.  But what's the answer?  The
morally outraged are a difficult group to dialog with...

                            Joan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:40:57 EST
From:         LIBR8506@RYEVM.RYERSON.CA
Subject:      oh what a lovely war

       This is shown on A&E from time to time but it may not be on video
yet.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Pmrqc:      1
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R2).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:47:00 CDT
From:         Michelle Lehman <MICHELLE@ORTTA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Previews....
X-To:         S70762OW%ETSUACAD.BITNET@vw.acs.umn.edu, CINEMA-L@american.edu

> First of all, I would like to thank all of you who replied, thank you for
> the kind remarks.  It has been a busy day at work, so far, and your comments
> made it go much more smoother.
>
> Secondly, I would like to thank Michelle Lehman, who commented on "Bombay"'s
> name change to "The Mighty Ducks."  I have been tracking movies for years,
> and the changes to scripts, storylines, and names are so fast, that it is
> almost impossible to keep up with.  But, thank you Michelle, and the next
> issue will correct that mistake.
>
>                                     Thanks, as always,
>                                           Bill Oppel
>

You're welcome Bill.  Thank you for taking the time and effort to put
together "Previews" for us in the first place.  I really enjoyed the
first issue and look forward to future issues.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michelle Lehman                                 michelle@ortta.umn.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU