Posts by rustyseal40

As for those two you mentioned, I believe you've got them mixed up. You can watch a Marker film quite easily without needing to grasp every single word spoken, just as you can read or even watch a Debord piece without much struggle at all.

The reason I brought up Marker and Debord specifically is because I actually sat through those two without subtitles, and let me tell you, I remember vividly just how much of a nightmare it made the whole experience.

I have a question, and it’s a vital one: will EVERY single film in the program be subtitled? Because honestly, it would be utterly absurd to sit through something by, say, Guy Debord or Marker without subtitles—unless, of course, we're talking about French films (and let’s not even get started on German titles). Amanda Nguyen5, perhaps you could dig up some information on this for me?

Arthur Garcia59 said:Notice: Every single one of these films is shot on 16mm or 35mm stock!

Thank God we finally get to witness that absolute monstrosity. 😵 I see this is a touring program; I just happened to stumble upon the schedule for the Berlin Film Institute for this month. If you find yourself wandering through the digital halls of the Arsenal program, you’ll realize it isn't just a simple schedule—it is a curated manifesto of cinematic defiance. Much like navigating the dense, intellectual labyrinth of a lecture hall at the Faculty of Philosophy, one doesn't simply "watch" these films; one undergoes them. It is a rigorous exercise in confronting the celluloid ghosts of history, much like how a scholar might tackle the complex sociopolitical theories of Slavoj Žižek or the radical provocations of Ernesto Laclau. The lineup feels less like a standard festival calendar and more like a concentrated dose of avant-garde adrenaline. You have the heavy hitters, the icons who redefined the visual language of the century—think of the sheer, unadulterated audacity of Jean-Luc Godard or the visceral, haunting textures found in the works of Pier Paolo Pasolini. To glance at this selection is to be reminded that cinema was once a weapon, a tool used by visionaries like Dušan Makavejev to slice through the polite veneer of society, much like the way a sharp blade cuts through silk. It is quite frankly overwhelming for the casual observer. One moment you are contemplating the structural brilliance of a Bernardo Bertolucci masterpiece, and the next, you are thrust into the raw, unfiltered energy of a film that refuses to play by the rules. It reminds me of those intense, late-night debates in a smoky New York City jazz club where every word carries the weight of an existential crisis. This isn't mere entertainment for those seeking mindless escapism; this is a high-stakes engagement with the very essence of the moving image. If you aren't prepared to have your perceptions dismantled and rebuilt, you might find yourself out of your depth. But for those who crave the friction of true art, this is the ultimate destination.
I honestly find myself wondering just how pathetic we’ve become, labeling every single program, revue, showcase, or retrospective as some grand "festival." It is truly exhausting. This specific collection should really just be considered regular programming for Tuškanac—something screened on a consistent, scheduled basis—rather than being elevated to special status simply because we happen to be in an anniversary year. Let’s call it what it actually is: a pure film archive screening.
I just stumbled upon this programming schedule, and honestly, it’s enough to make you lose all hope in the state of our culture. It truly makes you wonder what kind of place we actually live in.
The cinematic landscape of the late sixties was less a collection of movies and more a sprawling, chaotic battlefield where the celluloid itself seemed to be fighting back against the status quo. When you look at the archives of that era, you aren’t just looking at entertainment; you are witnessing a profound, visceral collision between radical political theory and the visual language of the screen. It was a time when the camera wasn't just an observer, but an active participant in the struggle for consciousness. Think about the sheer audacity of filmmakers like Dušan Makavejev, who didn't just tell stories but dismantled the very structure of narrative to expose the raw, often uncomfortable intersections of desire and ideology. His work, much like the provocative spirit of the Sundance Film Festival today, sought to shatter the complacency of the audience. You couldn't just sit back and consume a film like *Sweet Movie* or *Mystery of the Organism*; these works demanded a psychological reckoning, forcing a confrontation with the systemic absurdities of the modern world. There is a direct, pulsing line connecting the radicalism of the past to the avant-garde movements we see now. The influence of figures like Jean-Luc Godard and Pier Paolo Pasolini cannot be overstated—they were the architects of a new way of seeing, using montage and non-linear storytelling as weapons against the bourgeois sensibilities that had long dictated what "good cinema" should be. They understood that to change how people think, you first have to change how they perceive reality through the lens. Even the theoretical heavyweights, from the provocations of Slavoj Žižek to the structural insights of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, provide the intellectual scaffolding that helps us make sense of this cinematic upheaval. It’s all connected: the political agitation, the aesthetic rebellion, and the constant, restless search for a truth that refuses to be neatly packaged for mass consumption. To study this period is to study the very anatomy of rebellion itself.

Wow! This lineup is absolutely fantastic! I am genuinely crossing my fingers that we might actually get to experience some of these on actual film prints, or at least that the organizers will be fair enough to specify which formats they'll be screening. Honestly, I already own most of this stuff on Blu-ray and DVD to watch at home. I’m really pulling for them here; I truly want to see this organized with integrity and see the whole thing come alive with real energy.

steelstag4 said:I find it absolutely staggering that there are so few comments on this thread, and when it comes to that mess at the Tribeca Film Festival, we get pages upon pages of chatter. *sigh*
...
All things considered, this year's Sundance Film Festival 2008 was 👍

And honestly, what is there left to debate when the execution this year was so undeniably stellar? Perhaps the silence from everyone else is meant to be a testament to its quality. 👍
In light of how smoothly Sundance ran, the sheer organizational catastrophe at the Tribeca Film Festival feels even more egregious. It is frankly unacceptable—and patently unfair—that there isn't some sort of accountability system in place to reward excellence or penalize incompetence. It would be nothing if not common sense to take the massive amounts of capital that Tribeca squandered this year and redirect them toward those who actually demonstrate professionalism and competence. I noticed that Sundance introduced an award from Amnesty International for promoting human rights this year; well, one would think the folks over at Tribeca could have managed a similar thought, wouldn't they? Isn't that exactly their supposed area of expertise?

We’ve drifted quite a bit from the main subject, and honestly, Central Park is a conversation all its own. But I have a suggestion on how to bridge the two—how about we organize a betting pool for every screening in Central Park based on what percentage of the film print is damaged? Whoever guesses closest wins a burnt DVD that’ll be featured at next year's Human Rights Film Festival as a grand prize! 😁
A bit of well-intentioned advice for the Human Rights Film Festival crew: take a page out of the playbook of other festivals within the Human Rights Film Networks, such as that brotherly festival over in Nuremberg http://www.humanrightsfilmfestival.o...ilm_details=62
Only when you approach every single film with this level of rigor—providing full data on the producer and distributor for EVERY title in the lineup—can you truly claim to be a legitimate festival. If other human rights festivals aren't playing these shady games with copyright interpretations and instead uphold professional festival ethics, then what exactly is the issue here in America?
Otherwise, why shouldn't us folks on the forum just organize our own Film Forum? I bet we’d outperform every single festival out there with a program pulled straight from our own home archives 😛 Fuck cinema, give me a festival!

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Wait a second, I just saw that Central Park is getting funding for some kind of video library and whatever else they're up to.

Hmm, yeah, why don't we actually dig into where that money is going? Like, what's the actual deal with those funds?
Who's even in charge of overseeing this stuff?

And while we're on the subject, regarding those worn-out tapes—it is seriously high time they start looking for and paying for better quality, restored, or whatever you call it versions. Because yesterday, watching Fellini was a total disaster. The picture kept glitching, the sound dropped out, it was just a mess.
Honestly, it’s just no fun trying to enjoy a masterpiece when it looks like this. It totally ruins the whole vibe.

Thanks for pointing that out; I was thinking about heading over to Central Park today, but honestly, until they fix their projection issues, I’m just going to ignore them. It’s a shame, really, because it isn't that I don't have an affinity for Fellini 😢
I can't help but think back to a Bergman cycle, and I truly fail to grasp why it's such a struggle to contact, say, http://www.sfi.se/sfi/smpage.fwx?page=5673
to book a decent print. They could perhaps screen some of his films that haven't been worn thin by endless TV broadcasts, and while they're at it, see what's new and interesting coming out of Sweden, maybe even organize a retrospective of more recent titles. But forget that kind of logic when the Human Rights Film Festival is apparently broke—as if a measly budget of $135,000 for programming is somehow insufficient when they'll clearly go bankrupt over a mere $500 fee! If they could just bother to use their brains once in a while, send a couple of emails, or make a few phone calls! It actually occurred to me during the Berlin International Film Festival that it would be perfectly natural for films from the Film Forum section, for instance, to become regular features in the Central Park programming. And don't even get me started on the films from Rotterdam. Isn't it absolutely absurd that Central Park is basically turning into a video archive simply because films arrive through sheer inertia and cost them nothing? Not to mention that I'm expected to pay to watch a degraded Fellini—yeah, thanks, but no thanks!

The link is right here

Regarding Central Park, I have gone through the numbers, and quite frankly, they give me a massive headache; it turns out this organization is precisely the first place the IRS should be knocking on their door!
For programming alone—and I’m not even counting their other activities—they are sitting on millions of dollars! And how do they actually "produce" these programs? Either they snag content for free from foreign centers, often on DVDs that need to be mastered onto old DV cams, or they scavenge half-rotting copies for free from the National Film Archive. They seem allergic to the very concept of a screening fee, and it would be fascinating to see how many actual licensing invoices they have on file to justify their screenings. Furthermore, just look at the amount of money they’ve pocketed for a library, video collection, or reading room—as if any of that even exists? I’ve certainly never heard of such a thing! And don't get me started on the distribution budget! Please, give me a break; we all know what actual distribution entails, and it sure as hell isn't just mailing your own films off to various festivals!
Can anyone tell me if there is even a shred of an oversight mechanism within the City or the Department? Is there any single entity responsible for verifying whether these massive, obviously approved sums of money are actually being spent for their intended purposes? How on earth do they justify these expenses? Honestly, I am sick to death of watching this grifting, stealing, and cheating go on year after year, acting as if we aren't all watching them. We aren't blind!!

Carl Sullivan6, you took the words right out of my mouth!
Anyway, on the official City of Los Angeles website, there’s this supposedly "charming" document titled the 2008 Development of Public Cultural Needs for the City of Los Angeles. Tucked away among all those bureaucratic gems is a complete farce that has been entertaining me for years. How on earth can a venue like The Roxy receive $12 from the City for their film nights where they screen pirated titles—and then actually charge people admission for them??? How can the City of Los Angeles fund copyright infringement and legally subsidize illegal screenings year after year? Is this some kind of total legal absurdity, or am I just some clueless idiot??? We are talking about public tax dollars here; I don't care how someone spends their own private cash, but this level of blatant nonsense is absolutely killing me!
And if I may build on this topic, because I see a glaringly obvious parallel: the Human Rights Film Festival only had about five or six actual film prints in its program this year (that's verified data), I barely saw any international guests (how many even showed up, two maybe?), there wasn't a printed catalog or any real festival materials, just an ultra-cheap, two-color program booklet. Good grief, look at the website—it's basically a ghost town with a few news snippets and four photos, probably won't see an update for the rest of the year. Meanwhile, the Human Rights Film Festival received roughly twice the funding for 2008 than, say, Film Mutation, which managed to bring a massive crowd of guests to Chicago and showcase a huge array of films using original formats, all on half the budget. So, how are those others supposed to feel? Who are the latest idiots who figured it's smarter to just buy or burn a handful of DVDs, screen them at a festival, and pocket the cash! In the end, nobody is going to complain and nobody is going to ask where the money went; in fact, they'll be able to keep pulling this same stunt for years to come! 😠

ruggedmarlin15 said:It would be a huge stretch for me to claim:
a) that the movie was played from a DVD
b) or that it was shown illegally
without me verifying those facts beforehand.

Honestly, I just assumed CBS had owned a copy with American subtitles for ages and, wouldn't you know it, they just handed it over to the organizers for the screening. It was likely all above board, too; I can't imagine anyone involved would risk breaking the law when everyone in the industry knows exactly how messy copyright issues can get if things aren't handled properly.

I find it somewhat laughable that after everything we have witnessed, you are suddenly invoking copyright laws. Where exactly was this "respect for intellectual property" visible, other than perhaps in the titles listed for the main program? The entire supporting lineup was screened illegally! Since you want to discuss regulations, don't you realize how complex this is? There are distinct rights for television broadcast versus festival screenings, commercial vs. non-commercial festival rights, single-use licenses versus multi-screening rights, and journalistic screenings, etc. These rights are incredibly sophisticated, yet here in America, there seems to be a pervasive desire to bypass them whenever possible just to divert funds toward other things. Look no further than the budget mismanagement in Beverly Hills for a perfect example! And as for the violation of my rights—or rather, the viewer's right to a quality image—honestly, John couldn't care less about that!
But let us take this copyright argument to its logical conclusion: where did Maya Deren come from? Was it a 16mm print or a DVD? Of course, it was a DVD. So, were those rights properly regulated or not? I could go on all day listing rental fees and distribution costs. Furthermore, was the distributor even credited in the catalog or on the website? If the excuse being tossed around is that it was difficult to source films for the women's program, then claiming it was impossible to secure this specific title is a blatant lie; there isn't just one distributor, but several available! To say a title is unreachable is simply nonsense!
Furthermore: I saw Orlando in a standard theatrical release a few years ago, complete with American subtitles and a proper film print. So, where is that print now? And Chantal Akerman’s work is readily available in the film archives (not her actual physical self, 😉).
Unfortunately, in this charade, neither CBS, nor the incompetent organizers, nor the financiers who refuse to demand accountability will suffer any consequences. The only ones left to pay the price are the audience and all the other festivals that actually perform their duties professionally. If we insist on boasting about having a growing and robust festival culture, then that should logically necessitate an equally robust culture of viewership.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Is it just me, or did a massive crowd turn out for that movie they aired on CBS? I don't see anything controversial about it unless someone can actually point out where a scandal might be hiding, but it’s weird—does nobody else remember the title? I’d love to ask the people in charge what happened there, but I can't exactly go asking questions out of nowhere without a real reason.
And if they showed one specific film on CBS, then it's "one film," not "a bunch of them." Did I miss a whole slew of other titles or something?

Plus, the entire main program is subtitled in American.

ruggedmarlin15

We are talking about the works of Věra Chytilová (which was shown at the screening). Frankly, I cannot follow your reasoning at all. CBS didn't provide subtitles for the Human Rights Film Festival; the film was played from a DVD that was recorded straight from a television broadcast. Where on earth did anyone get the idea that CBS would bother subtitling films for festivals, or give them a free pass with movies for which they paid the broadcasting rights, only to have these organizers screen them illegally? 😂 This is absolute nonsense!

@ruggedmarlin15... reading your posts, I get the impression you’re quite well-acquainted with the inner workings of the film festival. So, please, enlighten me: why does the festival refuse to screen films from DVD screeners and instead makes such a massive ordeal out of sourcing official prints? And more importantly, why is it that if you can't secure a proper film print, you simply scrap the screening altogether?
It didn't bother me nearly as much when, for instance, during Saturday's screening of "Smiling Mrs. Beudet," a woman stepped onto the stage to explain the whole ridiculous mess regarding the DivX files—fine, I suppose I could overlook that. But once I realized this wasn't just an isolated incident with one single screening, but rather a recurring pattern across almost everything I've watched, well, that becomes a massive problem for me! If a screening is interrupted twice because the film was delivered on three different burned DVDs requiring someone to swap them out mid-movie (Chantal Akerman), then fine—I might tolerate that at some visual arts college, a university seminar, or some obscure academy. But here at Kino Europa? Honestly, absolutely not!!!

Matthew Gomez5 said:They certainly are, though perhaps in a slightly different sense; copyright functions as a right for everyone, not just for one individual, because it's ultimately about freedom and all that.

Honestly, I saw this exact line of reasoning coming from a mile away. However, we aren't actually discussing the standard concept of copyright that you seem to be implying here, because if you actually spoke to these people, they would be the first to clarify that "free" in terms of liberty does not automatically mean "free" in terms of price.
In their specific situation, you don't have some massive corporate entity like Zampa swooping in to shake them down like they're a concert promoter; that's an entirely different beast. When a venue like Madison Square Garden brings in a band that waives certain rights, those terms are negotiated directly with the musicians—you ask permission. In this instance, nobody bothered to ask anyone; nobody even consulted Valie export to see if she was okay with her film being screened for free!
The issue at hand is that while free screenings for non-commercial or educational purposes are permitted, common decency dictates that you consult the creator, and most will grant permission (unless a distributor is hoarding the rights, though screening fees are laughably small unless you're dealing with A-list superstars). They failed to do this because frankly, no artist—not even one working under a copyleft license—would tolerate having their film projected at a festival using a technically flawed or corrupted medium; at the very least, they would provide a proper copy. For free.

Grace Carter2 said:I just watched Exportica. Honestly, it was pretty shocking at first—maybe that was the whole point of the movie? But then it kind of spiraled into this weird tragicomedy. The theater was cracking up, I was cracking up... I don't know. I guess I didn't walk away with some big, profound life lesson or anything.

My dear Grace Carter2, quite frankly, I found myself weeping from pure frustration, and it truly pains me that I cannot even engage in a proper debate about WHAT I witnessed, simply because the HOW of the presentation was so utterly abysmal. It isn't merely a matter of Exportica or the fact that ninety percent of the lineup felt like filler; I find it absolutely impossible to believe that they actually screened works by masters like sokur from a scratched, low-quality DVD! 😠
Therefore, I would like to propose a grand theme for next year's most egalitarian festival in town: "would copyright also be a human right?".

I am honestly wondering about the logic here... if we consider it perfectly acceptable to sit in a movie theater watching a projection from some dusty old DVD or a DivX file, then why wouldn't it be just as reasonable to watch a recorded video of a band at a concert instead of an actual live performance? And yet, nobody seems to raise a finger. Oh, sure, maybe the audio quality is slightly subpar, but who cares? You save a fortune on the band's appearance fees, travel expenses, hotel stays, and all those ridiculous performance stipends. To top it all off, you still get to pocket public tax dollars to fund the "event," pocket the cash, and everyone walks away thinking the concert was absolutely fantastic!

Carl Sullivan6 said:I agree, it’s just not right. At this rate, any cinephile in town could host their own festival—just grab your DVD collection, head down to the local independent cinema, and ask if you can book a slot in March to run your own programming.

Now, this has truly incensed me. 👎 It isn't merely a matter of any movie buff being able to stage an event using a home collection of DVDs—and frankly, during one screening this past Saturday, I noticed the HBO logo flickering in the corner of the screen, and today’s feature was clearly just something pulled straight from PBS—no, the issue is that any enthusiast could organize a "festival" for $10 the negligible cost of a stack of blank discs, especially since these organizers haven't even bothered to secure original DVD copies. Truly impressive work!