On the issue of figurality, you might like to look at the work of
D.N. Rodowick, especially Reading the Figural, or Philosophy after
the New Media, Durham: Duke University Press, 2001.
Chs
Warwick Mules
Central Queensland University
>There are 7 messages totalling 764 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics in this special issue:
>
> 1. Indie-pendence (3)
> 2. Mekas and Dorsky
> 3. Political "indies" - follow-up questions... (2)
> 4. Figurality?
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:35:53 EDT
>From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Indie-pendence
>
>-------------------------------1098984953
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Forgive me if anyone has already mentioned this, but Peter Biskind's recent
>book on the American 'indie' efflorescence in the 90s also posits no
>hard-and-fast definition of independence (one of the book's
>faults?) Instead, what
>emerges is a tacit industry recognition of a certain brand of movie. Indeed,
>the aesthetic definition of independence has all the more purchase the closer
>the movie is aligned to the corporate structures of Hollywood. Frustratingly,
>I cannot lay my hands on it at present, but Leslie Felperin threw up her
>hands at the shifting parameters of 'independence' in her review of Biskind's
>book in Sight and Sound.
>
>When does your book on the US indies appear, Geoff. I'd be interested in
>reviewing it.
>Richard
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1098984953
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
><BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000;
>FONT-FAMILY:=20=
>Arial"=20
>bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
>e_document=20
>face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
><DIV>Forgive me if anyone has already mentioned this, but Peter Biskind's re=
>cent=20
>book on the American 'indie' efflorescence in the 90s also posits no=20
>hard-and-fast definition of independence (one of the book's=20
>faults?) Instead, what emerges is a tacit industry recognition of a cer=
>tain=20
>brand of movie. Indeed, the aesthetic definition of independence has all the=
>=20
>more purchase the closer the movie is aligned to the corporate structures of=
>=20
>Hollywood. Frustratingly, I cannot lay my hands on it at present, but Leslie=
>=20
>Felperin threw up her hands at the shifting parameters of
>'independence' in=20=
>her=20
>review of Biskind's book in Sight and Sound.</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>When does your book on the US indies appear, Geoff. I'd be interested i=
>n=20
>reviewing it.</DIV>
><DIV>Richard </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1098984953--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:04:16 EDT
>From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Indie-pendence
>
>--part1_1b9.50cdc16.2eb29cb0_boundary
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="-----------------------------1098990256"
>
>
>-------------------------------1098990256
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Try, try again...
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1098990256
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
><BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000;
>FONT-FAMILY:=20=
>Arial"=20
>bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
>e_document=20
>face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
><DIV>Try, try again...</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1098990256--
>
>--part1_1b9.50cdc16.2eb29cb0_boundary
>Content-Type: message/rfc822
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Return-Path: <>
>Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com
>[172.18.180.97]) by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v102.9) with ESMTP id
>MAILINYG43-263418131001a6; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:49:04 -0400
>Received: from smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk
>[130.246.192.55]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v102.9) with ESMTP id
>MAILRELAYINYG11-263418131001a6; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:48:48 -0400
>Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
>smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:48:47 +0100
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:48:47 +0100
>From: "L-Soft list server at JISCMAIL (1.8e)" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
>To: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FXMVACXLVeRCPeVXRObDJceXERGRdC"
>X-AOL-IP: 130.246.192.55
>X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
>
>
>--FXMVACXLVeRCPeVXRObDJceXERGRdC
>
>Your message is being returned to you unprocessed because it
>appears to have
>already been distributed to the FILM-PHILOSOPHY list. That is, a
>message with
>identical text (but possibly with different mail headers) has been
>posted to
>the list recently, either by you or by someone else. If you have a
>good reason
>to resend this message to the list (for instance because you have
>been notified
>of a hardware failure with loss of data), please alter the text of
>the message
>in some way and resend it to the list. Note that altering the
>"Subject:" line
>or adding blank lines at the top or bottom of the message is not
>sufficient;
>you should instead add a sentence or two at the top explaining
>why you are
>resending the message, so that the other subscribers understand
>why they are
>getting two copies of the same message.
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>--FXMVACXLVeRCPeVXRObDJceXERGRdC
>Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from 130.246.192.53 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0i)
>with TCP; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:48:47 +0100
>X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-RAL-Connect: <imo-d21.mx.aol.com [205.188.144.207]>
>Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com (imo-d21.mx.aol.com [205.188.144.207])
> by fili.jiscmail.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9SHlvt7015141
> for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:48:05 +0100
>Received: from [log in to unmask]
> by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id z.1c9.201ca663 (25508)
> for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 28 Oct 2004
>13:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:35:53 EDT
>Subject: Indie-pendence
>To: [log in to unmask]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>boundary="-----------------------------1098984953"
>X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5003
>X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.64 : BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38
>
>
>
>-------------------------------1098984953
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Forgive me if anyone has already mentioned this, but Peter Biskind's recent
>book on the American 'indie' efflorescence in the 90s also posits no
>hard-and-fast definition of independence (one of the book's
>faults?) Instead, what
>emerges is a tacit industry recognition of a certain brand of movie. Indeed,
>the aesthetic definition of independence has all the more purchase the closer
>the movie is aligned to the corporate structures of Hollywood. Frustratingly,
>I cannot lay my hands on it at present, but Leslie Felperin threw up her
>hands at the shifting parameters of 'independence' in her review of Biskind's
>book in Sight and Sound.
>
>When does your book on the US indies appear, Geoff. I'd be interested in
>reviewing it.
>Richard
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1098984953
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
><BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000;
>FONT-FAMILY:=20=
>Arial" bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7
>rightMargin=3D7><FONT=20=
>id=3Drole_document face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
><DIV>Forgive me if anyone has already mentioned this, but Peter Biskind's re=
>cent=20
>book on the American 'indie' efflorescence in the 90s also posits no=20
>hard-and-fast definition of independence (one of the book's=20
>faults?) Instead, what emerges is a tacit industry recognition of a cer=
>tain=20
>brand of movie. Indeed, the aesthetic definition of independence has all the=
>=20
>more purchase the closer the movie is aligned to the corporate structures of=
>=20
>Hollywood. Frustratingly, I cannot lay my hands on it at present, but Leslie=
>=20
>Felperin threw up her hands at the shifting parameters of
>'independence' in=20=
>her=20
>review of Biskind's book in Sight and Sound.</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>When does your book on the US indies appear, Geoff. I'd be interested i=
>n=20
>reviewing it.</DIV>
><DIV>Richard </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are r=
>eplying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>k.
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1098984953--
>
>--FXMVACXLVeRCPeVXRObDJceXERGRdC--
>
>--part1_1b9.50cdc16.2eb29cb0_boundary--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:45:03 +0100
>From: Geoff King <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Indie-pendence
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4BD1E.3C480D40
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>It's due out January/February-ish, from I.B.Tauris.
>
>geoff
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Richard Armstrong
>Sent: 28 October 2004 18:36
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Indie-pendence
>
>
>
>Forgive me if anyone has already mentioned this, but Peter Biskind's recent
>book on the American 'indie' efflorescence in the 90s also posits no
>hard-and-fast definition of independence (one of the book's faults?)
>Instead, what emerges is a tacit industry recognition of a certain brand of
>movie. Indeed, the aesthetic definition of independence has all the more
>purchase the closer the movie is aligned to the corporate structures of
>Hollywood. Frustratingly, I cannot lay my hands on it at present, but Leslie
>Felperin threw up her hands at the shifting parameters of 'independence' in
>her review of Biskind's book in Sight and Sound.
>
>
>
>When does your book on the US indies appear, Geoff. I'd be interested in
>reviewing it.
>
>Richard
>
>* * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
>always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
>the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help
>email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>------=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4BD1E.3C480D40
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
>xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
>xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
>xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
>
><head>
><meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Dus-ascii">
><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
><!--[if !mso]>
><style>
>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
>.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
></style>
><![endif]-->
><style>
><!--
> /* Font Definitions */
> @font-face
> {font-family:Tahoma;
> panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
> /* Style Definitions */
> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> {margin:0cm;
> margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> font-size:12.0pt;
> font-family:"Times New Roman";}
>a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;
> text-decoration:underline;}
>a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;
> text-decoration:underline;}
>span.EmailStyle17
> {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
> font-family:Arial;
> color:navy;}
>@page Section1
> {size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
> margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
>div.Section1
> {page:Section1;}
>-->
></style>
>
></head>
>
><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple id=3D"role_body" =
>bottomMargin=3D7
>leftmargin=3D7 topmargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7>
>
><div class=3DSection1>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>It’s due out =
>January/February-ish,
>from I.B.Tauris.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>geoff<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><div>
>
><div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
>size=3D3
>face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>
>
><hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>
>
></span></font></div>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
>style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
>font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
>size=3D2
>face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> =
>Film-Philosophy
>Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b><span =
>style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On
>Behalf Of </span></b>Richard Armstrong<br>
><b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 28 October 2004 =
>18:36<br>
><b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> =
>[log in to unmask]<br>
><b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> =
>Indie-pendence</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
>
></div>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
>
><div>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Forgive me if anyone has already
>mentioned this, but Peter Biskind's recent book on the American 'indie'
>efflorescence in the 90s also posits no hard-and-fast definition of
>independence (one of the book's faults?) Instead, what emerges is a =
>tacit
>industry recognition of a certain brand of movie. Indeed, the aesthetic =
>definition
>of independence has all the more purchase the closer the movie is =
>aligned to
>the corporate structures of Hollywood. Frustratingly, I cannot lay my =
>hands on
>it at present, but Leslie Felperin threw up her hands at the shifting
>parameters of 'independence' in her review of Biskind's book in Sight =
>and
>Sound.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
></div>
>
><div>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>=
>
>
></div>
>
><div>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>When does your book on the US =
>indies
>appear, Geoff. I'd be interested in reviewing =
>it.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
>
></div>
>
><div>
>
><p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
>style=3D'font-size:
>10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Richard <o:p></o:p></span></fo=
>nt></p>
>
></div>
>
></div>
>
></body>
>
></html>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you =
>are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: =
>[log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>------=_NextPart_000_017B_01C4BD1E.3C480D40--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:40:40 +0100
>From: Chris Lynn <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Mekas and Dorsky
>
>Is anyone going to the London Film Festival to see the Dorsky or Mekas
>films? If so, give some feedback please. Chris
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:49:19 +0100
>From: "Tzioumakis, Yannis" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Political "indies" - follow-up questions...
>
>TWFyYywNCiANClBlcmhhcHMgdGhlIGJpZ2dlc3QgcHJvYmxlbSBpbiBkZWZpbmluZyBBbWVyaWNh
>biBpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBjaW5lbWEgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgY3JpdGVyaWEgYXBwbGllZCBpbiBhbnkg
>ZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgdGVybSBhcmUgaGlzdG9yaWNhbGx5IHNwZWNpZmljLiBJbiBvdGhl
>ciB3b3JkcyB3ZSBzaG91bGQgbm90IHRhbGsgYWJvdXQgQW1lcmljYW4gaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgY2lu
>ZW1hIGJ1dCBhYm91dCBpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBjaW5lbWFzLiBUaGlzIGlzIGFuIGFyZ3VtZW50IEkg
>YW0gcHJvcG9zaW5nIGluIG15IG93biBib29rIG9uIHRoZSBoaXN0b3J5IG9mIEFtZXJpY2FuIGlu
>ZGVwZW5kZW50IGNpbmVtYSBmb3IgRWRpbmJ1cmdoIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgUHJlc3MuDQogDQpHZW9m
>ZiBjb3JyZWNseSBtZW50aW9uZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgdGVybSBpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBnb2VzIGFzIGZh
>ciBiYWNrIGFzIHRoZSBlYXJseSAxOTEwcyB3aGVuIHBpb25lZXJzIGxpa2UgV2lsbGlhbSBGb3gg
>YW5kIENhcmwgTGFlbW1sZSB0cmllZCB0byByZXNpc3QgdGhlIG9wcHJlc2l2ZW5lc3Mgb2YgdGhl
>IHRyYWRlIHByYWN0aWNlcyBvZiB0aGUgTW90aW9uIFBpY3R1cmVzIFBhdGVudHMgQ29tcGFueS4g
>Qm90aCB0aGUgZmlsbW1ha2VycyB0aGVtc2VsdmVzIGFuZCBlYXJseSBmaWxtIGhpc3RvcmlhbnMg
>bGlrZSBIYW1wdG9uIGNhc3VhbGx5IHJlZmVyIHRvIGFuICJpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBtb3ZlbWVudCIg
>YnV0IGluZGVwZW5kZW5jZSBoZXJlIGlzIGNvbmNlaXZlZCBzdHJpY3RseSBvbiBpbmR1c3RyaWFs
>L2luc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgdGVybXMuIA0KIA0KVGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbiBiZWNvbWVzIG1vcmUgY29t
>cGxpY2F0ZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBzdHVkaW8gZXJhLiBUd28gb2YgdGhlIHZlcnkgZmV3IGtleSBz
>dHVkaWVzIGRlYWwgd2l0aCBpbmRlcGVuZGV0IGNpbmVtYSBmcm9tIHR3byB2ZXJ5IGRpZmZlcmVu
>dCBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZXMuIE1lcnJpdHQgZGVmaW5lcyBpbmRlcGVuZGVudCBmaWxtcyBhcyB0aG9z
>ZSB3aG8gd2VyZSBub3QgZmluYW5jZWQgYnkgYSBtYWpvciBjb21wYW55IGFuZCBjb21wbGV0ZWx5
>IGlnbm9yZXMgZmlsbXMgYnkgcHJvZHVjZXJlcyBzdWNoIGFzIEdvbGR3eW4sIFNlbHpuaWNrLCBI
>dWdoZXMsIFdhbmdlciBldGMuIE9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBoYW5kLCBBYmVyZGVlbiBkZWFscyB3aXRo
>IGVsaXRlIHByb2R1Y2VycyBsaWtlIEdvbGR3eW4sIFNlbHpuaWNrLCBXYW5nZXIgZXRjIGJ1dCBo
>ZSBkb2VzIG5vdCBkZWFsIGxvb2sgYXQgdGhlIGxvd2VyIGVuZCBvZiBwcm9kdWN0aW9uLiBBbmQg
>Ym90aCBhdXRob3JzIGRpc3JlZ2FyZCBmaWxtcyBmcm9tIFBvdmVydHkgUm93IHN0dWRpb3MgKFJl
>cHVibGljLCBNb25vZ3JhbSwgR3JhbmQgTmF0aW9uYWwsIFByb2R1Y2VycyBSZWxlYXNpbmcgQ29y
>cG9yYXRpb24gZXRjKS4gV2hhdCBpcyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBhYm91dCBQb3ZlcnR5IFJvdyBmaWxt
>bWFraW5nIGlzIHRoYXQgb25lIGNvdWxkIGFyZ3VlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHNwZWVkIGFuZCBjaGVhcG5l
>c3Mgb2YgcHJvZHVjdGlvbiBhcmUgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZSBjcmVhdGlvbiBvZiBhIHNw
>ZWNpZmljIGFlc3RoZXRpYyBpbiB0aGUgc2FtZSB3YXkgdGhhdCB0aGUgY2FyZWZ1bGx5IG9yZ2Fu
>aXNlZCBhbmQgcmF0aW9uYWxpc2VkIHByb2R1Y3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIHN0dWRpbyBzeXN0ZW0gZ2F2
>ZSBiaXJ0aCB0byBhIHZlcnkgZGlzdGluY3QgYWVzdGhldGljIChvZnRlbiBjYWxsZWQgY2xhc3Np
>Y2FsKS4gSW4gdGhpcyByZXNwZWN0IFBvdmVydHkgUm93IGZpbG1zIGhhdmUgYSBtdWNoIG1vcmUg
>c3Vic3RhbnRpYWwgY2xhaW0gdG8gImluZGVwZW5kZW5jZSIgYm90aCBpbiBpbmR1c3RyaW8tZWNv
>bm9taWMgYW5kIGluIGFlc3RoZXRpYyB0ZXJtcyB0aGFuIGVsaXRlIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IHByb2R1
>Y2VycyBzdWNoIGFzIEdvbGR3eW4gYW5kIFdhbmdlci4gDQogDQpCdXQgd2hhdCBtYWtlcyBtYXR0
>ZXJzIG1vcmUgY29tcGxpY2F0ZWQgaXMgdGhhdCBhZnRlciB0aGUgUGFyYW1vdW50IGRlY2lzaW9u
>IGluIDE5NDggYSBsYXJnZSBudW1iZXIgb2YgIHByb2R1Y3Rpb24gY29tcGFuaWVzIHdlcmUgZm9y
>bWVkLiBBcyBtb3N0IG9mIHRob3NlIGNvbXBhbmllcyB3ZXJlIGZvcm1lZCBieSBleC1zdHVkaW8g
>ZW1wbG95ZWVzIChlc3BlY2lhbGx5IGRpcmVjdG9zIGFuZCBzdGFycykgY3JpdGljcyBsYWJlbGxl
>ZCB0aGVtICJpbmRlcGVuZGVudC4iIEF0IHRoYXQgcG9pbnQgaXQgc2VlbWVkIHJpZ2h0IHRvIGxh
>YmVsIHRoZW0gaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgYXMgdGhlIGNvbXBhbmllcyBkaWQgbm90IGhhdmUgYSBjb3Jw
>b3JhdGUgcmVsYXRpb24gd2l0aCB0aGUgZXgtc3R1ZGlvcy4gSG93ZXZlciwgYXMgdGhlIHN0dWRp
>b3Mgc2hpZnRlZCBmcm9tIHByb2R1Y3Rpb24gYW5kIGV4aGliaXRpb24gdG8gZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9u
>IGFzIGEgbWVhbnMgb2YgY29udHJvbGxpbmcgdGhlIGZpbG0gaW5kdXN0cnksIHRoZSBpbmRlcGVu
>ZGVuY2Ugb2YgdGhvc2UgY29tcGFuaWVzIGJlY2FtZSBhIG1vb3QgcG9pbnQuIFRoZSBleC1zdHVk
>aW9zIHN0aWxsIGV4ZXJjaXNlZCBjb250cm9sIGJ5IGZpbmFuY2luZyB0aGUgZmlsbXMgb2YgdGhl
>c2UgY29tcGFuaWVzIGluIGRpcmVjdCBvciBpbmRpcmVjdCB3YXlzLiBTdGlsbCB0aGUgdGVybSBp
>bmRlcGVuZGVudCBwZXJzaXN0ZWQsIHBlcmhhcHMgZm9yIGxhY2sgb2YgYSBiZXR0ZXIgd29yZC4g
>DQogDQpTbyBpdCBiZWNhbWUgY2xlYXIgdGhhdCBjcml0aWNzIG5lZWRlZCBhIGRpZmZlcmVudCBz
>ZXQgb2YgY3JpdGVyaWEgdG8gZGVmaW5lIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IGNpbmVtYS4gVGhpcyBpcyB3aGVu
>IGVtcGhhc2lzIHdhcyBwbGFjZWQgb24gaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIGNvbXBhbmll
>cy4gSXQgd2FzIGFyZ3VlZCB0aGF0IGlmIGEgZmlsbSBpcyBwcm9kdWNlZCBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZSBz
>dHVkaW9zIGFuZCBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBieSBhIG5vbiBtYWpvciB0aGVuIHdlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBh
>YmxlIHRvIHRhbGsgYWJvdXQgaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgY2luZW1hIGluIGEgbW9yZSBjb25jcmV0ZSBt
>YW5uZXIuIFRodXMgY29tcGFuaWVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgVGhlIERpc3RyaWJ1dG9ycyBDb3Jwb3JhdGlv
>biBvZiBBbWVyaWNhLCBFbWJhc3N5LCBBbWVyaWNhbiBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIFBpY3R1cmVzLCBO
>ZXcgV29ybGQgUGljdHVyZXMsIE5ldyBMaW5lIENpbmVtYSwgTWlyYW1heCwgT3Jpb24gUGljdHVy
>ZXMgZXRjIHdlcmUgc2VlbiB0byBvZmZlciBhIHNvcnQgb2YgYSBndWFyYW50ZWUgb2YgaW5kZXBl
>bmRlbmNlLiBFdmVuIG5vd2FkYXlzIHdoZW4gTmV3IExpbmUgYW5kIE1pcmFtYXggYXJlIHN1YnNp
>ZGlhcmllcyBvZiB0aGUgbWFqb3JzIGFuZCBhbGwgdGhlIG90aGVycyBkbyBub3QgZXhpc3QsIHRy
>YWRlIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9ucyBzdWNoIGFzIFNjcmVlbiBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIHRyZWF0IE5ldyBM
>aW5lIGFuZCBNaXJhbWF4IGFzIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IGNvbWFuaWVzLiAoT24gdGhpcyBzdWJqZWN0
>IEkgc2hvdWxkIHJlY29tbWVuZCBteSBlc3NheSAiTWFqb3IgU3RhdHVzIC0gSW5kZXBlbmRlbnQg
>U3Bpcml0OiBUaGUgSGlzdG9yeSBvZiBPcmlvbiBQaWN0dXJlcyAoMTk3OC0xOTkyKSBpbiBUaGUg
>TmV3IFJldmlldyBvZiBGaWxtIGFuZCBUZWxldmlzaW9uIFN0dWRpZXMsIFZvbCAyLCBObyAxKS4g
>T24gdGhlIG90aGVyIGhhbmQsIERyZWFtd29ya3MgU0tHLCBhIHByaXZhdGVseSBvd25lZCBjb21w
>YW55LCBpcyByb3V0aW5lbHkgcGxhY2VkIGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhlIG1ham9ycyAodGhvdWdoIEkg
>dGhpbmsgbm90IGJ5IFNjcmVlbiBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsICkNCiANCkFtZXJpY2FuIGluZGVwZW5k
>ZW50IGNpbmVtYSB0aGVuIGlzIGEgc2xpcHBlcnkgdGVybSBvbmx5IGlmIHdlIGZhaWwgdG8gc2Vl
>IHRoYXQgaXQgaGFzIG1lYW50IHZlcnkgZGlmZmVyZW50IHRoaW5ncyBhdCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdGlt
>ZXMuDQogDQpZYW5uaXMNCiANCiANCiANCkRyIFlhbm5pcyBUemlvdW1ha2lzDQpTZW5pb3IgTGVj
>dHVyZXIgaW4gU2NyZWVuIFN0dWRpZXMNClNjaG9vbCBvZiBNZWRpYSBDcml0aWNhbCBhbmQgQ3Jl
>YXRpdmUgQXJ0cw0KSm9obiBNb29yZXMgVW5pdmVyc2l0eQ0KRGVhbiBXYWx0ZXJzIEJ1aWxkaW5n
>DQpTdCBKYW1lcyBSb2FkDQpMaXZlcnBvb2wNCkwxIDdCUg0KIA0KdGVsOiAwMTUxIDIzMS01MDMw
>DQpmYXg6IDAxNTEgMjMxLTUwNDkNCg==
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:27:52 -0400
>From: "Matthew H. Bernstein" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Political "indies" - follow-up questions...
>
>Adding to Geoff's comments, from a historical perspective this debate about
>independent filmmakers does indeed go back decades, certainly in American
>film history. My work on the "independent producer" Walter Wanger, like
>that of Tino Balio on United Artists, looked at how totally integrated such
>producers were into the Hollywood production and distribution machinery (I
>suggested calling such filmmakers "semi-independent").
>
>What I found was that the term "independent" was defined negatively, as "not
>studio," and hence it was incredibly elastic. And using an industrial basis
>for defining the concept, I found, in Wanger's case, that such industrial
>semi-independence could enable filmmakers to make aesthetically innovative
>or topically provocative films (Lang's YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE, SECRET BEYOND THE
>DOOR, Ford's THE LONG VOYAGE HOME, or Dieterle's BLOCKADE, Wellman's THE
>PRESIDENT VANISHES, Hitchcock's FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, Wise's I WANT TO
>LIVE!, LaCava's GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE), but it certainly could not
>guarantee such films would be made. So many other factors, including the
>predilections of the above the line talents, the current political climate,
>and the strength of industry self-regulation all shaped the films
>themselves.
>
>It seems as though these kinds of considerations apply to defining
>"independence" now, even though we see narrative fiction films that stretch
>formal and stylistic conventions (MEMENTO) and political views beyond what
>was possible in the studio era.
>
>Matthew Bernstein
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:10:58 EDT
>From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Figurality?
>
>-------------------------------1099055458
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>In recent years I have come across references to writings on figurality (?)
>in movies, particularly in connection with Nicole Brenez' work. I have been
>asked to write about Janet Leigh, and rather than trundle out the old
>sociohistorical observations about her image I am seeking another,
>more revealing
>approach. I wonder if there is a piece on figurality in English and easily
>accessible which would afford me a working way into this critical
>practice. Any
>suggestions would be much appreciated.
>
>I tried posting on the discussion around the US independents yesterday, but
>for some strange reason my posting was twice returned saying identical
>postings have already appeared! I simple wanted to alert the
>participants to Peter
>Biskind's recent book on the US indie sector, one which posits no
>hard-and-fast definition of independence (one of the book's
>faults?) What emerges is a
>tacit industry recognition of a certain style of putting deals and movies
>together. Frustratingly, I am unable at the moment to put my hands
>on the issue of
> Sight and Sound in which Leslie Felperin threw up her hands at the shifting
>parameters of 'independence' in that book. If Biskind has already been
>mentioned, I missed that digest and this recollection should be ignored.
>Richard
>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1099055458
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
><BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000;
>FONT-FAMILY:=20=
>Arial"=20
>bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
>e_document=20
>face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
><DIV>In recent years I have come across references to writings=20
>on figurality (?) in movies, particularly in connection with Nicole Bre=
>nez'=20
>work. I have been asked to write about Janet Leigh, and rather than
>trundle=20=
>out=20
>the old sociohistorical observations about her image I am seeking anoth=
>er,=20
>more revealing approach. I wonder if there is a piece on figurality in Engli=
>sh=20
>and easily accessible which would afford me a working way into this critical=
>=20
>practice. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.</DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV>I tried posting on the discussion around the US independents yesterday,=
> but=20
>for some strange reason my posting was twice returned saying identical posti=
>ngs=20
>have already appeared! I simple wanted to alert the participants to Peter=20
>Biskind's recent book on the US indie sector, one which posits no hard-and-f=
>ast=20
>definition of independence (one of the book's faults?) What emerges is a tac=
>it=20
>industry recognition of a certain style of putting deals and movies together=
>.=20
>Frustratingly, I am unable at the moment to put my hands on the issue o=
>f=20
>Sight and Sound in which Leslie Felperin threw up her hands at the shifting=20
>parameters of 'independence' in that book. If Biskind has already been=20
>mentioned, I missed that digest and this recollection should be=20
>ignored.</DIV>
><DIV>Richard </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>*
>*
>Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>you are replying to.
>To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
>For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>**
>
>-------------------------------1099055458--
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 28 Oct 2004 to 29 Oct 2004 - Special
>issue (#2004-269)
>**************************************************************************************
--
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Warwick Mules Editor Transformations
Cultural Studies,
http://www.cqu.edu.au/transformations
Humanities, Central Queensland University
Bundaberg Campus, email: [log in to unmask]
Locked Bag 3333 DC phone: 0741 507142
Bundaberg, Queensland, mobile: 04122 92541
Australia 4670 fax: 0741 507080
_______________________________________________________________________________
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|
