Dear Rose--
Perhaps you have not been following the discussion in recent weeks, but
there has been probably more than excessive discussion in this
FILM-PHILOSOPHY salon regarding the events of Sept. 11 and beyond.
Predictably, given the nature of the site's concerns, little of it was
terribly informed, constructive or substantial. Some of us have been trying
to re-direct the discussion back onto the subjects we all came here for in
the first place. It is, in essence, a virtual room, which I willingly
entered. I don't think I speak just for myself when I say that I don't
expect, and don't appreciate, the mail-bombings from political sects. This
is not the room for it. There are countless other rooms on the 'net for such
discussion. This is not a call for censorship, nor is it, as you vividly
term it, a ``blunt instrument.'' Indeed, it's just the opposite; it's a call
to refocus on cinema, which badly needs some focussed discussion about right
now. We in this room did not enter to have an endless, general chat about
the issues of the day. I would have thought this was obvious by now, but
apparently needs more explanation.
So. Again: Film. Philosophy of film. Perhaps (I hope), the future of
film. That is more than enough to fill a room.
So. I'd like to throw a question out there, with the future in mind:
Where will the independent filmmakers go right now? How will they respond to
Sept.11 and beyond? It seems to me that this is an interesting direction to
speculate, and may be illustrative of how the indies are or are not so
different from the dominant cinema of Hollywood.
Robert Koehler
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eiichi Tosaki & Rose Woodcock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Robert Koehler's blunt instrument
> Robert, you wrote
>
> > If you aren't going to discuss film philosophy at this
> > point--after we have long gone past the post-Sept. 11 debate which
> > sidetracked the main theme--please go somewhere else
>
> What is good about electronic mailing lists, is that there are no
limitations
> on space or scope. There is no reason why a list dedicated to, say, film &
> philosophy, could not also accommodate discussion of what would
undoubtedly be
> the most pertinent issues - the main theme - of the day.
>
> I understand those wanting to keep the list more specifically aligned to
> discussions of film & philosophies, but there is nothing stopping those
> discussions from flourishing here on this list, or on any other.
Discussion,
> argument, refutation & conjecture etc., cannot (and I think, should not)
be so
> readily contained/constrained by the arbitrary terms of reference (i.e.,
the
> nominal purpose of a mailing list) that are used for reasons unrelated to
the
> 'life' of critical discourse, which, as evidenced by the varied postings
on
> this list, has a trajectory of its own.
>
> Minor downloading time-extension notwithstanding, these 'bilious Leninist'
> discussions of post-post-Sept 11 events do not stop anyone from discussing
film
> & philosophy.
>
>
> Rose Woodcock
|