Comments for Putney Debater http://www.putneydebater.com A personal blog Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:40:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Pointless Obstacles by David Hickman http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/04/11/pointless-obstacles/#comment-1748 David Hickman Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:40:01 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1312#comment-1748 I'm not so sure 'pointless' quite covers it. I'm doing my own REF impact case study, also for documentary. The problem I have with the criteria is that they are antithetical to the entire documentary project: to feed into the public realm. I was trying to think of a documentary that did that, but also met the specific requirement that it furthers or alters government policy in some way, and the only example I could come up with was Triumph of the Will. Here was a documentary that not only determinedly presented a 'government agenda', but was also instrumental (as a kind of natural experiment) in demonstrating to the Nazi hierarchy the power of the medium as a means of harnessing Nazi ideology and symbolism. Being 'value-neutral' about the nature of powers being served, or policy being influenced, is reckless. But it is, above all, no part of documentary filmmakers' articles of faith (or at least none that I know of) to address their work to particular interests in government or industry. Incidentally, my films, on forms of modern slavery, were broadcast worldwide with an audience of millions. I doubt that I will be able to make a convincing case for their 'impact'. I’m not so sure ‘pointless’ quite covers it. I’m doing my own REF impact case study, also for documentary. The problem I have with the criteria is that they are antithetical to the entire documentary project: to feed into the public realm. I was trying to think of a documentary that did that, but also met the specific requirement that it furthers or alters government policy in some way, and the only example I could come up with was Triumph of the Will. Here was a documentary that not only determinedly presented a ‘government agenda’, but was also instrumental (as a kind of natural experiment) in demonstrating to the Nazi hierarchy the power of the medium as a means of harnessing Nazi ideology and symbolism. Being ‘value-neutral’ about the nature of powers being served, or policy being influenced, is reckless. But it is, above all, no part of documentary filmmakers’ articles of faith (or at least none that I know of) to address their work to particular interests in government or industry.

Incidentally, my films, on forms of modern slavery, were broadcast worldwide with an audience of millions. I doubt that I will be able to make a convincing case for their ‘impact’.

]]> Comment on Jury Service in Digital Times by Gabriel C http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/06/jury-service-in-digital-times/#comment-1386 Gabriel C Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:17:09 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1252#comment-1386 Fascinating. Re : 'Witnesses may or may not tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but nobody tells the whole truth.' Perhaps we need to campaign for an alternative formulation. How about...: swear to 'Tell the truth, nothing but the truth and the truth in as holistic a manner as you can despite awareness of the inevitability of fragmentary perception' ; or 'The truth, the whole truth of what you perceived and nothing but the truth of what you perceived, despite the fact that your pre-existing gestalts will have predisposed you to perceive certain things rather than others'. Or 'The truth, the whole of that limited fraction of the truth to which you can attest from your sensory data and don't jump to conclusions about the rest'. Would these catch on? Also, the camera in the witness box is priceless. Good title for something. That would need its own special formula: 'To screen the event, the partial event and never the whole event...'? Fascinating. Re : ‘Witnesses may or may not tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but nobody tells the whole truth.’ Perhaps we need to campaign for an alternative formulation. How about…: swear to ‘Tell the truth, nothing but the truth and the truth in as holistic a manner as you can despite awareness of the inevitability of fragmentary perception’ ; or ‘The truth, the whole truth of what you perceived and nothing but the truth of what you perceived, despite the fact that your pre-existing gestalts will have predisposed you to perceive certain things rather than others’. Or ‘The truth, the whole of that limited fraction of the truth to which you can attest from your sensory data and don’t jump to conclusions about the rest’. Would these catch on? Also, the camera in the witness box is priceless. Good title for something. That would need its own special formula: ‘To screen the event, the partial event and never the whole event…’?

]]> Comment on Remembering Stanley Forman by Jim Ballantyne http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/09/remembering-stanley-forman/#comment-1378 Jim Ballantyne Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:00:28 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1260#comment-1378 I first met Stanley at the British Universities Film Council (later BUFVC) in the Seventies and retain very many warm memories of him. In his own words, he was a mensch. He was a great supporter of the BUFVC down the years and I shall be representing both the Council and myself at his funeral on Monday. I first met Stanley at the British Universities Film Council (later BUFVC) in the Seventies and retain very many warm memories of him. In his own words, he was a mensch. He was a great supporter of the BUFVC down the years and I shall be representing both the Council and myself at his funeral on Monday.

]]> Comment on Remembering Stanley Forman by Philip Simpson http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/09/remembering-stanley-forman/#comment-1370 Philip Simpson Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:04:29 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1260#comment-1370 Thanks for this moving picture of a good and loveable man, Michael. Little footnote: when Stanley came to the college where I worked to speak to the students you could see their eyes widen when Stanley talked about Ivor Montague, or John Grierson and his personal knowledge of them. No name dropping, just a warm but sharply critical aside. Thanks for this moving picture of a good and loveable man, Michael.
Little footnote: when Stanley came to the college where I worked to speak to the students you could see their eyes widen when Stanley talked about Ivor Montague, or John Grierson and his personal knowledge of them. No name dropping, just a warm but sharply critical aside.

]]> Comment on Remembering Stanley Forman by Ralph Gregory http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/09/remembering-stanley-forman/#comment-1362 Ralph Gregory Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:56:17 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1260#comment-1362 Sad to hear of Stanleys death, I worked at ETV in 1971 for a year when I was about 17. My duties included sending out the films to schools and then rewinding and repairing them when they came back. Happy time working with Stan and his Secretary Betty Baker and endless Dymo taping as I labeled up the racks of films in Doughty street and in Stanleys basement. Betty in particular looked after me a bit like a mother and I seem to remember the occasional cream cake appearing at the office at tea break. Totally lost touch with them since that time but thanks for a gentle and caring introduction to the world of work! Sad to hear of Stanleys death, I worked at ETV in 1971 for a year when I was about 17. My duties included sending out the films to schools and then rewinding and repairing them when they came back. Happy time working with Stan and his Secretary Betty Baker and endless Dymo taping as I labeled up the racks of films in Doughty street and in Stanleys basement. Betty in particular looked after me a bit like a mother and I seem to remember the occasional cream cake appearing at the office at tea break. Totally lost touch with them since that time but thanks for a gentle and caring introduction to the world of work!

]]> Comment on Jury Service in Digital Times by chuck kleinhans http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/06/jury-service-in-digital-times/#comment-1345 chuck kleinhans Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:43:20 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1252#comment-1345 Thanks for the very interesting and thoughtful report. I especially appreciated the discussion of email and other digital forms. Thanks for the very interesting and thoughtful report. I especially appreciated the discussion of email and other digital forms.

]]> Comment on Jury Service in Digital Times by Adam Kossoff http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/06/jury-service-in-digital-times/#comment-1344 Adam Kossoff Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:56:30 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1252#comment-1344 '... the policeman in question, who went white as a sheet' - good for projecting film on then? I met a structuralist filmmaker when I was doing jury service - he may not have approved of film being projected as evidence in court, it would have been construed as both passive and illusory. On the other hand one could regard your screening as expanded cinema or filmaktion even. ‘… the policeman in question, who went white as a sheet’ – good for projecting film on then? I met a structuralist filmmaker when I was doing jury service – he may not have approved of film being projected as evidence in court, it would have been construed as both passive and illusory. On the other hand one could regard your screening as expanded cinema or filmaktion even.

]]> Comment on Jury Service in Digital Times by Wendy http://www.putneydebater.com/2013/02/06/jury-service-in-digital-times/#comment-1343 Wendy Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:52:37 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1252#comment-1343 I recently did jury service and I find your observations spot on, really well put. It was one of the most intersting, challenging, frustrating and inspiring experiences I have had for a long time. The process shows real respect for human intelligence and our collective desire and capacity to give people a fair hearing. It's not easy for all the reasons you describe above - not least because of what can be called in as evidence now - but while being shut in a small room with 11 other strangers for an open-ended period of time could be a nightmare scenario, the seriousness with which everyone took their responsibility and respected each other's views, made it - for me - surprisingly life affirming (even though I didn't get the verdict I wanted). I recently did jury service and I find your observations spot on, really well put. It was one of the most intersting, challenging, frustrating and inspiring experiences I have had for a long time. The process shows real respect for human intelligence and our collective desire and capacity to give people a fair hearing. It’s not easy for all the reasons you describe above – not least because of what can be called in as evidence now – but while being shut in a small room with 11 other strangers for an open-ended period of time could be a nightmare scenario, the seriousness with which everyone took their responsibility and respected each other’s views, made it – for me – surprisingly life affirming (even though I didn’t get the verdict I wanted).

]]> Comment on Against ‘Impact’ by Richard Schellhammer http://www.putneydebater.com/2012/11/10/against-impact/#comment-1178 Richard Schellhammer Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:01:43 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1221#comment-1178 I'm particularly struck by the problem of Education adopting a business model to measure potential outcomes. This is a problem that is, in my opinion, destroying higher education here in the US. Currently, my university is going through the two-year process of renewing our accreditation. As the university hires new personnel to gather mountains of date, as faculty and staff spend countless hours gathering reams of reports (instead of doing the silly work of teaching), and as we have endless meetings about our new Quality Enhancement Project (a model drawn from the business standard of ISO9000), I'm struck by the fusion of business with education. We have to prove that we're turning out a product. "Students" are reduced to "learners" and "teachers" to "facilitators." So, on an intellectual assembly line, we facilitators pour smartness into the brains of our learners and make them more smarter -- something like that. The more product we create (graduation rates) the better we've performed. I’m particularly struck by the problem of Education adopting a business model to measure potential outcomes. This is a problem that is, in my opinion, destroying higher education here in the US. Currently, my university is going through the two-year process of renewing our accreditation. As the university hires new personnel to gather mountains of date, as faculty and staff spend countless hours gathering reams of reports (instead of doing the silly work of teaching), and as we have endless meetings about our new Quality Enhancement Project (a model drawn from the business standard of ISO9000), I’m struck by the fusion of business with education. We have to prove that we’re turning out a product. “Students” are reduced to “learners” and “teachers” to “facilitators.” So, on an intellectual assembly line, we facilitators pour smartness into the brains of our learners and make them more smarter — something like that. The more product we create (graduation rates) the better we’ve performed.

]]> Comment on Against ‘Impact’ by chuck kleinhans http://www.putneydebater.com/2012/11/10/against-impact/#comment-1174 chuck kleinhans Mon, 12 Nov 2012 06:33:37 +0000 http://www.putneydebater.com/?p=1221#comment-1174 I appreciate the larger points here, though being in the US my situation is somewhat different, and I don't know what most of these acronyms are. But I know that I myself judge some research done by others in my field (media studies) as relatively superficial(the Philosophy of The Matrix, etc.), or redundant (do we really need another study of Alfred Hitchcock's "genius"?). "Impactful" is absurd, especially in the arts and humanities, but don't we still need to discriminate about the seriousness sor usefulness of research? If so, by what means, and in whose judgement? I appreciate the larger points here, though being in the US my situation is somewhat different, and I don’t know what most of these acronyms are. But I know that I myself judge some research done by others in my field (media studies) as relatively superficial(the Philosophy of The Matrix, etc.), or redundant (do we really need another study of Alfred Hitchcock’s “genius”?).
“Impactful” is absurd, especially in the arts and humanities, but don’t we still need to discriminate about the seriousness sor usefulness of research? If so, by what means, and in whose judgement?

]]>