i do agree with Chuck.
These sorts of queries would be much more interesting if we had some
idea of the reason for them, and how the information is going to be
used. That might even open up things to a little healthy critiquing.
Plus, the query itself has been widely misunderstood. The original
question was
"Am looking to identify filmmakers who are in relationships with other
filmmakers, or those have been in the past, and where their individual
works are distinct and separate from each other, rather than outright
collaborations (if that makes sense). This, within the artist's film,
artist-made film, experimental film genre."
That has been interpreted to mean relationships with any other artist
who is not a filmmaker, or relationships between collaborating
filmmakers only, when the original question seems to exclude both.
But I also agree about the arbitrariness of "in relationships with."
This seems to have been understood to mean sexual, when it doesn't
always; it seems to have also been understood to mean as a relatively
exclusive couple, when one could be in a once-a-week non live-in but
long standing sexual relationship, or in an intense, almost spousal,
live-in NON sexual relationship.
One could perhaps even argue that the question is itself a little
offensive, assuming the sexual meaning was intended (as it usually is in
such contexts), privileging sex over other connections, as if the
presence of sex generally implies an identifiable difference in a
relationship. Apparently "liberal" groups such as ours, hyper sensitive
to the way certain differences do not imply an inequality, too easily
accept unchallenged assumptions in areas outside the currently
privileged ones of race, gender, class, orientation.
A few decades ago I was asked to an invitations-only weekend event,
involving cinema, and was invited to bring my "spouse, or mate , if you
have one." The organizers heard my protest and agreed to "friend." I
invited one, who unfortunately declined.
All that said, I wouldn't mind reading a privately-published /Hollywood
Babylon /of avant-garde cinema. Present at a circa 1980 event like the
one Chuck describes, in which women were telling what might be called
"he solicited me stories" about filmmaker X. I once joked about writing
one myself. Hollis Frampton was present, and, somewhat drunk, he
objected, "Hold on there just a minute young man. Hold on there. He
[naming X] is not the /only/ horny filmmaker on the lecture circuit." I
replied, "That's OK, Hollis, we'll include you too." and he smiled.
Fred Camper
Chicago
On 2/12/2017 1:13 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:
I've been away for a few days and returned to the list to see this peculiar
(IMHO) topic.
What does this eagerly responded to question help us understand?
Is the exchange of bodily fluids related to what ends up on the emulsion?
Did people have to cohabit to be on the list?
What about filmmakers notorious for sleeping aground (often with their
students) such as…oh just read Scott McDonald's, or view some of the films
of….oops, don't libel the departed.
But what about filmmakers who hooked up with people in the other arts? Or
critics/theorists/academics?
Would making this list be a good drinking game?
Actually, I've heard some very funny and blistering comments by women speaking
among themselves about certain male filmmakers, based on…er…personal knowledge
that, well, you know…….
Chuck Kleinhans
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
