# Ravenous Cinephiles

## Cinephilia, Internet, and Online Film Communities

Melis Behlil

jbottle – 11:59 AM/EST March 21, 2003 (#8564 of 21182)

"I guess we all hold onto some movie, usually for personal reasons..."

Yeah, for some reason I really like MIKE'S MURDER, so I can forgive someone's personal faves. For every LLV [LEAVING LAS VEGAS] lover there's somebody out there who obsesses over routinely dismissed film O.C. & STIGGS and even something as distasteful as RAVENOUS.

oilcanboyd23 – 12:04 PM ET March 21, 2003 (#8567 of 21182)

Obsess – "To preoccupy the mind of excessively."

While O.C. & STIGGS does haunt me, and RAVENOUS is my 11th favorite movie of all time, neither one preoccupies my mind excessively. I only discuss them when I am asked to do so by a fellow poster. To ignore such requests would be rude. I may have a lot of bad traits, one of which is being not long on truthfully or fairly attributing remarks to others, but rudeness is not one of them.¹

The above is a fairly classic exchange from two of the more seasoned members of the *New York Times* Film Forums.² It contains references to some of the most often-mentioned films of these Forums: *oilcanboyd* often expresses his admiration for O.C. & STIGGS (USA: Robert Altman, 1987), and every time RAVENOUS (Czech Republic/UK/Mexico/USA/Slovakia: Antonia Bird, 1999) or anyone related to that film is mentioned, he makes a point of commenting on it, often noting that it is his eleventh favorite film of all time. "Ravenous" in the title of this article refers not only to this film and the little ritual around it, but also to the position the "forumites" (Forum members) have had vis-à-vis the forums, in the way that this online community satisfied a long-standing hunger for discussions with fellow cinephiles.

## The New Cinephilia

With the changes technology has brought to contemporary life, cinephiles – for whom movies are a way of life, films and how they are experienced have undergone major changes. The classic cinephile, as the term was adopted in the
1960s, connected the love of cinema to the actual medium of film, and to the movie-going experience. Being a cinephile involved traveling to distant theaters to track down obscure art films and discussing them with fellow cinephiles, either in ciné-clubs or in respectable film journals. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the boom in home-viewing technologies and the decline in the number of art house theaters changed things. And with the popularization of the internet in the 1990s, the cinephile world became a whole different scene. For some, like Susan Sontag, David Denby, and David Thomson, this marked the death of cinema and cinephilia. For others, it was merely a new beginning.

In "The Decay of Cinema" Susan Sontag lamented the death of cinephilia. She argued that "going to the movies" was a great part of the movie experience, and that the vanished rituals of the theatre could not be revived.³ The discussions about the possible death of cinephilia have continued and are linked very closely to the differences between movie-going and home-viewing. Born into an pre-existing home-viewing culture, I am among those who think limiting cinephilia to movie-going is a restrictive and provisional way of perceiving the love of cinema. Not only that, but it is also restrictive in the sense that people living outside of a handful of Western metropolises did not have the chance, until recently, to see non-mainstream fare, on or off the screen. Theo Panayides calls our generation (those born in the late 1960s and early 1970s) "the best generation in which to be a film-buff."⁴ We can access films that were never so easily available before, and unlike the subsequent generations, the "vast hinterland of film history" is not yet "impossible to encompass." This is the age of "the new cinephilia," which really got going with the home video,⁵ and it is not necessarily inferior to the cinephilia of the 1960s.

The new cinephilia is closely related to technology, in the way that it relies on the gadgets that make home theaters possible: first the VCR, then the hi-fi surround sound systems, and lastly the DVD. The new cinephiles may be called videophiles instead,⁶ but it is the same love for an art form. Those bemoaning the demise of cinema often argue that movie theaters have all been cut into movieplexes with many tiny theaters, all showing the most recent, unoriginal and uninspired blockbusters. It is at home, however, that a film lover can watch more or less any film he/she desires, sometimes in conditions that are better than those in some stuffy, tiny movieplex theater. Repeated viewings don't cost extra and favorite scenes can be rewound and rewatched at one's own leisure. The availability of films is assured not only through giant merchandisers like Amazon.com, but also through specialized film stores such as Video Search of Miami,⁷ which claims to have "more than 12,000 Cult, Exploitation, Foreign, and Bizarre movie titles" on VHS or DVD. In addition, one can (legally or often illegally) download copies of films from peer-to-peer (p2p) systems, or exchange DVDs or tapes with other cinephiles on the internet.
Not surprisingly, the new breed of cinephilia feeds itself intellectually through the technology of the internet. Various sites on the net are not only the source of great (and unfortunately not always correct) information, but they also provide a space for cinephiles to get together and exchange ideas, and fuel their need to discuss the films they have seen, which is a part of the cinephiliac tradition. In an attempt to build an analogy, one can argue that online communities are to home viewing, what ciné clubs were to the movie-going experience. Similarly, there are online journals such as *Scope, Senses of Cinema* or *Film Philosophy* that are no less stimulating than their printed counterparts, which are also often partly or fully available online to readers who would not have a chance to get hold of this material otherwise. Local film critics and gurus of the 1960s' cinephilia have been joined by online film critics such as James Berardinelli and Mike D'Angelo, who are read by thousands around the world. Online film critics are taken more seriously than they used to be just a few years ago, and many published film critics reach larger audiences through their publications' websites.⁸

Just as it is easier to obtain films and access journals, it is also easier to meet fellow cinephiles on the internet. Fellow film buffs may be easy to find in large cities or on university campuses, but cinephiles living in more rural and less culturally diverse areas are frequently on their own when it comes to tastes in film. However, online film critic Bryant Frazer argues that despite the existing forums and discussion sites, “a real sense of community” is missing online.⁹ I disagree with him because I believe that these communities are real, although he does have a point when he says that “discussions that ensue tend to the diffuse – soundbite discussions peppered with moments of insight from a few hardy posters who really shouldn’t waste their time contributing to a community that gives them so little in return.” However, these are still valid online communities that provide people with an unprecedented sense of camaraderie, and in the case that I will be discussing, can evolve into something that goes beyond “soundbite discussions.” My case study starts with the *New York Times* Film Forums, and continues with its spin-offs, the Milk Plus Blog and The Third Eye Film Community.

I will use the term “online” and “cyber” instead of “virtual” since these communities are as “real” as any other. The “realness” of these communities is not to be doubted; as Steven Jones contends: “Internet users have strong emotional attachments to their on-line activities.”¹⁰ Howard Rheingold, one of the initial theorists and earliest advocates of online communities, spoke of his “family of invisible friends.”¹¹ While validity of online communities as communities proper has been frequently debated, it has become quite clear that there is a need to redefine community, and that the old definitions and concepts are largely obsolete today.¹² What some adversaries of online communities argue, namely that a
virtual community can never truly become a community, is not only restrictive but it also makes the mistake of confusing "the pastoralist myth of the community for the reality" according to Barry Wellman and Milena Gulia.¹³ For the cinephiles in question here, there often is no possibility of another, "real" community. In her "Introduction to the second issue of Cybersociology Magazine," Robin Hamman attempts to identify "community." Her definition, using George Hillery's analysis, is as follows: "(1) a group of people (2) who share social interaction (3) and some common ties between themselves and the other members of the group (4) and who share an area for at least some of the time."¹⁴ Each of these items is valid for the community I will be discussing here.

Film-related communal cyberspaces are quite varied, ranging from casual chatgroups to academic mailing lists, from devoted fan-site-rings to theory-oriented e-journals. I will use the *New York Times* Film Forums as an example to look at the way in which an online community functions. The interviews that form part of the research for this article were conducted in January 2002 via email. However, since then, there have been a number of changes in the community, and some members have split up to form different film discussion sites. It is only natural for a community to undergo changes, even more so when this community is based in a constantly changing and growing environment like the internet. One very basic reason for my choice is the fact that I have been a member of these Forums from 1998 to 2003 and have had a chance to observe the dynamics of the community over the years. But I also find it interesting that by being associated with the *New York Times*, the Forums carry a certain weight, a connotation of being a part of one of the leading newspapers in the world. This issue comes up quite frequently in discussions in terms of maintaining a certain level of "quality" in the conversations. One member of the Forums recently described Vincent Gallo as "perverted" and "insane" for making *THE BROWN BUNNY* (USA/Japan/France: 2003), and asked: "Don't the *Times* editors have more sense than to promote this disgusting point of view?"¹⁵ In addition, the *New York Times* has required registration on its site and since late 2001, the Film Forums have been a moderated space, requiring special registration with the Forum moderator, resulting in a certain level of commitment to even become a posting member. To demonstrate the dynamics of this online community I will relate my own observations on the Forums, as well as some responses from forumites to questions I posed regarding their film-viewing and online habits. Since some members have preferred not to be named with their "real" names, I will refer to them by their online handles, or nicknames.
## Movies – Opinionated Readers’ Opinions

The *New York Times* Forums were founded in 1996, along with the launch of the *New York Times* website.¹⁶ These were designated according to the major sections of the newspaper and at first hosted by experts in each field. The Film Forums were moderated by Melanie Franklin in 2002, when the first version of this paper was presented, and starting in April 2004, by Joan Hanson. They are located in the *New York Times* "Readers-Opinions section", filed under the heading "Arts" and the subheading "Movies," and are divided into several sections, which have been renamed over the years: *Current Film* became *Hollywood and Movie News*, *International Film* became *Indies and World Cinema*, and *Home Viewing* remained the same. Some headings change every few months, including: *Oscars, Genre Series: Horror Films, The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made* and *Overlooked Films*, as well as *The Blanche Awards*, to which I will return. Although all of these sections were and still are used as general guidelines, some discussions occurred in unrelated sections, and off-topic conversations used to be very common. Moderation is done on three levels: members need to be registered to post; there is an automated moderation that withholds posts containing certain "improper" words, which are then reviewed by the moderator to see if the post is actually offensive or if it is just a misunderstanding.

In 2002, the 138 registered members were from a variety of geographical locations, age groups, and backgrounds. There were forumites from the USA, Canada, the UK, Italy, Turkey, Austria, Germany, and Australia. The ages ranged from late teens and college students to pensioners in their sixties. Male/female ratio was almost equal. These were mostly amateur cinephiles, but also some film professionals, film critics: but interestingly, no formal film students. I should note that all these data are from posters, and not lurkers (readers). Forum members saw films both in movie theaters and at home. The ratio between the two was approximately 1/3 to 2/3, favoring home-viewing for nearly all forumites. A few members had DVD players, but most still owned VCRs. Most of them went online both from work and from home, making the EST early evening hours the busiest times on the Forums. Most Forum members had never been a member of a film club, nor did they frequent any other film-related online communities.

One thing most members have in common is that their love for film is often known and found peculiar by their "real-life" acquaintances. It is their love of cinema that has drawn them to these Forums and keeps them together, even though the tastes and interests of forumites are quite diverse. I think this is also the key point in terms of cinephilia, as Kent Jones argues: "whether or not we all agree about Olivier Assayas or Wong Kar-wai is less important than the fact
that our respective responses to them are passionate and informed ones. In the end, that's what distinguishes cinephilia from connoisseurship, academicism, or buffery."¹⁷ One of the strongest cornerstones of this community remains the fact that it brings together people not only with a similar love for cinema, but also people who, until the Forums, had been unable to engage in intense discussions on the object of their love, simply because of their geographical location. For the members of the Forums from outside large cities (who amount to at least half of the posters), cyberspace is the only option to exchange opinions. What used to be a minority taste in their local surroundings is no longer minority in the global context, reached via the internet.

## Rituals and Experiences

Hamman's third definition of community, as cited above, is: "common ties between themselves and the other members of the group." This is the most significant of the four items. Stephen Doheny-Farina argues that a community is "not something you can easily join," but that "it must be lived."¹⁸ In the case of this online community, the first common bond is the love of cinema, but to take a community further, one needs common experiences and rituals; even more so in a cinephile community, since cinephilia is often closely associated with certain rituals. "Rituals" in this case refer to an everyday usage of the word, suggesting "habits." For instance, Sontag notes the ideal seat for a cinephile has to be "the third row center."¹⁹ In the *New York Times* Forums, these rituals presented themselves on various levels. Although membership has changed somewhat, many of the rituals discussed here are still observable, in the original Forums or in their spin-offs. Firstly, there are the little daily rituals concerning dialogues. Certain members have unique expressions or phrases, which function as a signature. This is most visible when *coniraya* is online, since he has a definitive style with incomplete sentences and deliberate misspellings: "some click world a fantasy. ya knewl that graben between virtu/ and re/ality."²⁰ This is accompanied by *oilcanboyd*'s exclamation "opps!" whenever he and *coniraya* are simultaneously online. *Oilcanboyd* is also responsible for another ritual, involving RAVE-NOUS, related in the introduction of this article.

On another level, Forum members discuss their film-viewing rituals. There has been a section titled *Personal Experiences*, where forumites shared their memories related to films: for instance, *tirebiter*'s proposing to his wife-to-be at the Wilmette Theater during a screening of Marcel Carné's *LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS* (France: 1945). Frequently, members describe the exact circumstances in which they watched a particular film, mentioning the movie theater, the
weather; or if at home, where they got their film from, what they ate before watching it, and what kind of wine they drank while watching it. There are many threads with lists of favorite use of a song in a film, best possible imagined cast for different movies, and many others, similar to the "Top 5" lists so endearingly made in Stephen Frears' *HIGH FIDELITY* (UK/USA: 2000), a movie about (among other things) the love of records. Many members frequently announce their "Top 10 films of the year so far," demonstrating a near-obsession with making lists, which culminates in the Blanche Awards, coinciding with the Oscars every year. The awards, although laid-back in terms of eligibility (all films that opened in the forumite's country of residence that year qualify), has a fairly strict voting procedure. It involves a two-tiered voting, where nominees are determined by open voting online, and winners by a second round, done via emails sent directly to the volunteering counter. This tradition continues on the Milk Plus blog, where the awards have been renamed Droogies.

Moderation of the Forums, while sometimes limiting the use of certain words, used to be very relaxed in terms of off-topic postings. Although these did get out of hand at times, off-topic postings also provided Forum members with background information about the other forumites, making the exchanges a lot more personal and friendly, a point frequently made in the emails sent to me by the members. Some forumites have met outside the net and/or correspond regularly. There have been occasions that brought members together, when one member became a father, when one opened a bar in Las Vegas, and when one of the much-loved members of the community lost his wife. But possibly the single most important experience has been 9/11, when discussions were focused on one section, and functioned as a roll call to make sure members in New York and Washington were alright. As *pokerface11* said in her email: "I could help by staying on-line, getting updates, helping people through the shock who actually lived in the city."²¹ The *New York Times* Opera Forum in fact lost a member in the attacks, and the funeral was attended by some Forum members.

I mentioned earlier that a large percentage of the members come from outside the large cities, where they have limited access to films and opportunities to discuss cinema. This also helps to build strong ties between forumites, since within this group, they are no longer isolated film buffs, but just one of the crowd. If it is any sign of the "film-buffness" of its members, the level of trivia questions thrown about is extremely high. When asked what they find advantageous about the Forums, nearly all of the members regard forming friendships with like-minded people and sharing opinions as their highest priority. Most are also happy with the level of writing, and believe that writing about a film "forces [one] to think about it, and to clarify [one's] response"²² and that the Forums have offered them "a place to test some of [their] ideas or things that [they] have learned [at school]."²³
On the cyber-level, the dynamics of the community show strong parallels
with those of any offline film group. There are members who get along well
with one another, and those who declare their clear dislikes of certain other for-
umites. Every now and then, some members leave the community, accusing
others (who have left) of being too superficial, as in the words of *jeremybroad*:
"the likes of *joshuasilver, balmung, xerxes* and others, who instinctively feel that
erudition can only thrive in a dry atmosphere, that because levity and serious-
ness are near antonyms they are mutually exclusive."²⁴ There have been those
who leave because they find the Forums no longer satisfying, or because their
interests take them elsewhere. But the largest number of defectors can now be
found at two different newer communities, a communal weblog (blog) called
Milk Plus²⁵ and a forum called The Third Eye Film Community.²⁶

Milk Plus and The Third Eye

Milk Plus was founded on 10 March 2002 by *mcbain* (Albert Goins), who wrote:

Milk Plus: the Korova Milkbar for the intelligentsia. Starting a group of friendly members from the NYT Movie Forum, and adding on from there, we've assembled a collective of valuable contributors for a message board where films can be discussed at length and with both great debate and sympathetic analysis. Cutting out the moronic trolls that plague the NYT Forum as well as the endless white noise chatter, this format will encourage a more fruitful and efficient way for all of us to communicate across the globe on the topics.²⁷

The setup of the blog is different from that of a forum. Only members (maximum of 32, now at 26) can post on the main page. These postings are usually longer pieces of criticism on a specific film or a TV series, and sometimes they are festival notes from around the world. On the comments pages, members and non-members can express their opinions about the post. This setup keeps the blog far more focused than the Forums have ever managed to be. In no time, a number of forumites began posting their writing at the blog. These included those who actually wrote film criticism in their offline lives. Membership is limited and by invitation only. The blog introduces its members as "a collective of writers who have come together because we are all opinionated, passionate lovers of film who wish to share with friends and strangers alike." So the essential aim of sharing filmic experiences remains central. Milk Plus takes its name from Stanley Kubrick's *A CLOCKWORK ORANGE* (UK: 1971), and the yearly awards given out, in a manner similar to the Blanche Awards, are called The Droogies, after the same film. The site has quickly garnered attention, and was
chosen by *Forbes* magazine as the second best movie blog, behind *rottentomatoes.com*, which is hardly a blog, since it collects the reviews of professional film critics and not amateurs. *Forbes* has said:

> The site confers posting privilege on literate and knowledgeable amateur movie critics and gives them space to post reviews, with an emphasis on non-Hollywood fare. The site succeeds in this goal to a considerable extent, allows for lively but serious discussion and provides links to leading professional critics and other film-related sites.²⁸

In other words, Milk Plus has managed to step away from the "chatter" of the Forums, and it has been able to produce meaningful discussions on film. This chatter is not a problem specific to the *New York Times*, but is visible in most forum-type communities. It should not come as a surprise that two forumites who have noted that the Forums "have [their] fair share of 'Man, this film sucks,' one-line reviews, they're balanced by longer, more considered, analyses"²⁹ and that they wished "that the Forum would become more, it's not exactly the right word, but academic"³⁰ are among the regular contributors for Milk Plus.

Nearly two years after Milk Plus, another group separated from the *New York Times* Forums. This came as a response to the changes in the Forums, which included a tighter moderation in terms of off-topic postings, in addition to a new look and new moderators. For a close community with established rituals, these changes were unacceptable. After debates via private emails, 26 members set out to establish The Third Eye Film Community in May 2004. It is noteworthy that "community" became a part of the title. One of the members supplied the domain, and all have contributed to the cost of a programmer, who set up the site.³¹ The Third Eye is closer in its setup to the Forums than it is to Milk Plus. Its members increased quickly, reaching 70 in three months, mostly from the Forums, some are also members of Milk Plus.

Like the *New York Times* Forums, The Third Eye has different topic headings, including Television and Music. Membership is fairly open, but the community is not largely advertised (unlike the *New York Times*), which ensures that membership remains small, and provides a more intimate and casual setting. As Nessim Watson discusses in his analysis of the phish.net fan community, intimacy plays a vital role in sustaining an online community.³² Members can also send each other private messages if they want to continue their dialogue on a more personal level.

In "real life," there are restrictions in clubs, people are sometimes forced to leave or not admitted at all, and it is somewhat similar online. In the Forums, registration is a fairly simple procedure, open to all. But on occasion, there have been members who were banned. In Milk Plus, however, the "club" is more
restrictive. According to the FAQs, "The decision to invite someone to join the blog is based upon merit and compatibility with the other blog members" and one needs the acceptance of at least two of the site administrators to be able to post on the main page. But because there is a tight admittance procedure, people are more open about their offline identities and there have been no problems in terms of having to ban a member.

The *New York Times* Forums continue, with some of the same people. Although former members have been disillusioned, there have been, and will continue to be, new members. And the Forums, although now more strictly moderated, do provide their members with a certain sense of belonging and community. For newer members joining in over the years, these Forums can be a stepping-stone to other online film communities, as they have been for the forumites discussed here.

## Conclusion

Home viewing has indeed changed a lot in terms of film viewing practices. I do agree that no home theater can ever give the full experience of viewing a film in a movie theater. But one does not always (and everywhere) have the same access to films the way residents of large Western cities in the 1960s had, as it was glorified by Susan Sontag. So, one can now go and buy or rent videos or DVDs to watch at home. New cinephiles are well aware that home viewing may not offer the best conditions for film viewing, as suggested in this poem by *nilson2001*:

I think that I shall never see
A perfect unsmeared DVD
As I relax at home in my BVDs
I soak and scrub my DVDs;
But scrub as I will, it's no matter,
Still here a freezeframe, there a chatter;
One night a stutter in PYRAMUS AND THISBE
In rage I hurl it like a frisbee;
Then a missing f-word in my CASINO,
Sends me deep into a bottle of vino;
And what's this frozen fish frame in Jaws?
Some video lackey's unclean paws?
And those missing seconds in SHICHIN NO BUSHI,
A great pain in this cinephile's tushy!³³
Similarly, one is not always able to find people in his/her close circle of acquaintances to discuss films. With the internet, it has become possible to reach people with a love of cinema all over the world. The fact that the members of these communities cannot always meet each other face-to-face does not make them any less real, especially if the primary goal is to share ideas and opinions about films. And in fact, in this community, as in other online communities, members have managed to meet in person, or at least have contacted each other using other types of communication technologies. As members meet each other and the community becomes more intimate, the nature of the community changes from being "online" to "old-fashioned," and the difference is that now, the community consists of people who may know each other but happen to communicate via the internet. In any case, this cinephile community could not have come into existence and could not be sustained without information technology.

Kent Jones comments on how, in part because of home-viewing practices, we have become "our own islands": "[That is] why we scan the globe and are heartened to recognize something in others that we recognize in ourselves: real love."³⁴ For cinephiles around the world, the internet is the only place where one can find fellow film lovers. That's why it plays such a crucial role in the undying of cinephilia. As Bryant Frazer argues, "the Internet may well deliver a second century of cinephiles from video-bound solitude." I believe it already has.

## Notes

1. *New York Times Film Forums. New York Times.* Edition November 2004. 11 November 2004. <http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/movies/homeviewing/index.html?offset=8780>.

2. In this article "Forum" with a capital letter refers to the *New York Times Forums* specifically, and "forum" refers to the type of online community in general.

3. Sontag, Susan. "The Decay of Cinema." *New York Times*, 25 February 1996: section 6, p. 60.

4. Panayides, Theo. "Permanent Ghosts: Cinephilia in the Age of the Internet and Video, Essay 2." *Senses of Cinema*, no. 4, March 2000. 17 Aug. 2004. <http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/4/cine2.html>.

5. Martin, Adrian. "Letters From (and To) Some Children of 1960." *Rosenbaum, J. (ed.)* *Film Quarterly*, fall 1998. 10 February 2002. <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1070/is_1998_Fall/ai_53258011>.

6. Erickson, Steve. "Permanent Ghosts: Cinephilia in the Age of the Internet and Video, Essay 1." *Senses of Cinema*, no. 4, March 2000. 16 August 2004. <http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/4/cine1.html>.

7. *Video Search of Miami*. 18 August 2004. <http://www.vsom.com>.
8. Silverman, Jason. "Invasion of the Web Critics." *Wired*, 28 February 2004. 18 August 2004. <http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0%2C1412%2C62453%2C00.html>.

9. Frazer, Bryant. "Permanent Ghosts: Cinephilia in the Age of the Internet and Video, Essay 5." *Senses of Cinema*, no. 5. April 2000. 17 August 2004. <http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/5/cine5.html>.

10. Jones, Steven G. "Information, Internet and Community: Notes Toward an Understanding of Community in the Information Age." Jones, Steven (ed.). *Cybersociety 2.0*. Thousand Oaks, CA, London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998.

11. Rheingold, Howard. "The Virtual Community." Trend, David ed. *Reading Digital Culture*, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 272-280. p. 272.

12. Schuler, Doug. *New Community Networks*. New York: ACM Press, 1996, p. 9.

13. Wellman, Barry and Milena Gulia. "Virtual Communities as Communities." Smith, Marc A. and Kollock, Peter (eds.). *Communities in Cyberspace*. London and New York: Routledge, 1999, 167-194. p. 187.

14. Hamman, Robin. "Introduction to Virtual Communities Research and Cybersociology Magazine Issue Two." *Cybersociology Magazine*, no. 2. 20 November 1997. 18 August 2004. <http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/2/is2intro.html>.

15. *New York Times Film Forums*. <http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/movies/indiesandworldcinema/index.html?offset=5280>

16. Osder, Elizabeth (editor of *NY Times* online at the time of the site launch). Email to the author. 23 January 2002.

17. Jones, Kent. "Letters From (and To) Some Children of 1960," J. Rosenbaum (ed.). *Film Quarterly*, Fall 1998. 10 February 2002. <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1070/is_1998_Fall/ai_53258011>.

18. Doheny-Farina, Stephen. *The Wired Neighborhood*. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. p. 37.

19. Sontag, "The Decay of Cinema."

20. *New York Times Film Forums*. Edition November 2004. 12 November 2004. <http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/movies/homeviewing/index.html?offset=17995>.

21. *pokerface11*. Email to the author. 31 January 2002.

22. *copywright*. Email to the author. 4 February 2002.

23. *shroom*. Email to the author. 12 February 2002.

24. *jeremybroad*. *New York Times Film Forums*. Edition November 2001. 8 November 2001. <http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@60.AUp5aJFFySW^1226029@.f06d782/43144>.

25. *Milk Plus: A Discussion of Film*. <http://milkplus.blogspot.com>.

26. *The Third Eye Film Community*. <http://www.thirdeyefilm.com/phpBB2/index.php>.

27. *Milk Plus Board Policies and FAQs*. 19 August 2004. <http://milkplus.blogspot.com/Board%20Policies%20and%20FAQs.htm>.

28. *Forbes.com*. 19 August 2004. <http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/30/cx_daMovieblogsSlide_2.html?thisSpeed=15000>.

29. *copywright*, idem.

30. *shroom*, idem.

31. Shapiro, Lorne. Email to the author. 6 September 2004.
32. Watson, Nessim. "Why We Argue About Virtual Community: A Case Study of the Phish.Net Fan Community." Jones, Steven G. (ed.) *Virtual Culture*. Thousand Oaks, CA / London / New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1997. pp. 109-110.

33. *New York Times Film Forums*. Edition November 2004. 11 November 2004. <http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/movies/homeviewing/index.html?offset=4355>.

34. Jones, K. "Letters From (and To) Some Children of 1960".
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>