tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post1218700524515646717..comments2023-12-20T00:09:21.373-08:00Comments on motion within motion: LACMA and the Crisis of Repertory Cinema AdvocacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-34009667512870187982009-09-02T10:27:02.922-07:002009-09-02T10:27:02.922-07:00I agree with the post in its entirety and agree th...I agree with the post in its entirety and agree that it is crucial to reframe how we think about repertory cinema as a creative ecosystem: 1) if not actively maintained it withers; it requires our participation as cultural stewards and not merely as consumers (speaking to the nostalgia issue); and perhaps most provocatively it can find an analog in the embrace of the locavore food movement that values not only quality but personal responsibility. With cinema as with food, those veggies are good for you; they not only nourish the body and mind, they support the infrastructure that makes quality possible. The alternative is the cinema equivalent of processed food: easy to produce, cheap to consume, and ultimately unsatisfying and in large quantities unhealthy.Mark Elliotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-45793038467443407192009-08-28T11:00:40.223-07:002009-08-28T11:00:40.223-07:00Excellent piece, Kyle.
"We cannot rely solel...Excellent piece, Kyle.<br /><br />"We cannot rely solely on appeals based on 'the big screen,' 'real movie theater butter,' 'the communal experience' — ultimately there are ways to circumvent those. ... Simply stated, the whole history of cinema is not available on DVD."<br /><br />True, but can't the "unavailability" argument be circumvented as well? As you point out, circulating prints of many of the greatest films do not exist, and more and more of those films are being made available via DVD.<br /><br />The "locality" argument is good, but it doesn't address the specific need for quality 35mm/16mm print projection.<br /><br />I think there's a much deeper cultural issue here, more pronounced in popular culture but more problematic within film culture. LACMA would never close their modern painting wing due to the availability of posters of Pollocks and Rothkos, and the public wouldn't accept it either. So there's a basic question of where the "art" and aesthetic value is seen to reside within a particular medium. If film is seen as primarily a story-telling medium, then who cares if you're watching something on 35mm, TV, or DVD. If film is seen, per Brakhage, as "on-off illumination of individual still images in sequence," that creates a different attitude towards the medium and a deeper appreciation of the need to see films in their "original" (print issues notwithstandng). So if film aesthetics remain under-appreciated even within elite film culture -- reflected, for example, in the ways many of the greatest films continue to be marginalized and ghettoized by the "avant-garde" label (a particularly egregious practice among film culture elites) -- then how can we expect more general arts institutions like LACMA to recognize the need to promote, preserve, and provide access to "the whole history of cinema"?<br /><br />"$100,000 is still a comparatively small sum for a museum."<br /><br />Isn't film undervalued at such institutions precisely because it is so cheap? There being no "original" as there is in painting or sculpture, a film print can't be commodified. And to the extent that a work's value in the art <i>market</i> influences (and can be influenced by) it's value in art <i>culture</i>, I'm afraid film will always be the black sheep (cheap whore?) in the art family. Which is why the whole repertory system -- even calling it "repertory" is a weird concession to market logic -- is being sustained on life support by those few individuals (such as yourself) who remain dedicated to the medium rather than the market.Jason Guthartzhttp://film.restructures.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-39567183765531538352009-08-24T20:28:22.266-07:002009-08-24T20:28:22.266-07:00This frank speaking piece is much appreciated. Goo...This frank speaking piece is much appreciated. Good intentions for cinema are running low among those in power. As Renoir said, Hollywood is less about making money, more about spending it. Perhaps Govan has a similar attitude and loathing for humble small potato programs; directors of his ilk have absolutely no understanding of the "delicate infastructure of repertory cinema" and need to be educated of it. The film program will never bring the decadent glory of massive expenditure, but maybe its the spending of more money that should be appealed to. In any case, its clear to me that a bigger budget for the film program should be the demand, -- more resources, not less or the same as before the crisis.Andy Rectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15870363285627741234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-3944212875378690202009-08-24T15:06:12.080-07:002009-08-24T15:06:12.080-07:00@ Amanda:
Doc's budget fluctuated with attend...@ Amanda:<br /><br />Doc's budget fluctuated with attendance and administration support. Suffice it to say, I don't work for Doc anymore and I don't know if I'm allowed to disclose this kind of thing.<br /><br />The major costs for any repertory cinema are print rental, shipping, labor, upkeep, and advertising. I frankly don't think it's possible to run one unless it's underwritten by a major institution (like LACMA) or the managers can find a work-around for one of those major components. In the case of Doc, it had no labor expenses because it was totally volunteer-run, which allowed film rentals and shipping an outsized portion of the budget. For venues affiliated with a major film archive, they can often fill holes in the schedule by screening their own prints, provided they pay a nominal rights fee. (That said, some archives have agreements with the studios wherein they store material owned by the studio in exchange for the right to screen those prints free of charge, among other things. Still other archives believe they have this right but have no contract to back them up.) <br /><br />When gas hit $4 a gallon, every major courier jacked up their shipping rates and added fuel surcharges. In a case like that, Doc was hurt because there aren't many prints left at the Waukegan depot (which I hear has since closed), which meant we had to pay shipping to and from L.A. or N.J. on every print. Conceivably a rep venue on the east coast could limit their shipping expenses by programming from the heaps of prints at Bonded in Fort Lee. A place like LACMA could run many programs from the studios' Hollywood vaults. <br /><br />Similarly, a venue is willing to screen things on 16mm (often the only option for avant-garde work) then costs can be lowered, too. <br /><br />It's always a combination of factors based on what's right for the venue and its audience.K. A. Westphalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05904376652788803558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-45718464978382676882009-08-24T13:51:54.578-07:002009-08-24T13:51:54.578-07:00If the LACMA trustees do not consider film worthy ...If the LACMA trustees do not consider film worthy as art, what <b>do</b> they consider worthy?<br /><br />This is not a rhetorical question. What, exactly, is supposed to be so much better than motion pictures?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-86896050366974933502009-08-24T11:47:04.147-07:002009-08-24T11:47:04.147-07:00I was also involved with DOC Films at the UofC, an...I was also involved with DOC Films at the UofC, and have often thought about it in light of LACMA's decision a month ago.<br />What did it cost to run DOC? I know we relied on a tremendous amount of volunteer labor, but we still had to pay for the prints, the shipping, new lightbulbs for the projectors, etc.Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08468528170098028795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-75276603460463742802009-08-24T09:48:55.814-07:002009-08-24T09:48:55.814-07:00This is the most succinct and informed article I&#...This is the most succinct and informed article I've read on this LACMA travesty--bravo.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05093833962432679258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1041118333526796822.post-74633911492793846022009-08-23T20:55:07.378-07:002009-08-23T20:55:07.378-07:00As a native to Los Angeles and a lover of film, th...As a native to Los Angeles and a lover of film, this little jeremiad rings true.Alex R.noreply@blogger.com