I thank you for taking my concern at face value, and I appreciate the fact that the organizers made an obviously bona fide effort to bring more diversity to the panel of participants. Please forgive me for the rather acrimonious nature of my initial post—one gets tired of advancing what are obvious points only to be ignored time and time again. I just think that it is vital to include as many diverse voices to a discussion like this for it to become truly relevant, which is no doubt what you and other organizers wish as well.
I think part of the problem is that when we talk about film we often reffer only to narrative films that are based in Aristotle’s principles of Tragedy. In ther words we are leaving out the discussion the most important question. What is film?
To me this discussion is a about narrative film. The cinephilia you guys are talking about is not cinephilia, only narrative film buffery.
To go back to the first thread. I don’t even think film is at a point where it can be discussed in restrospective. Film should be discussed with the assumtion that we don’t know what cinema is yet.
I would argue that we are entering a new geological phase given the nature of film as a material has changed so dramatically. The Celluloid age has passed because digital is so pre-eminent in narrative in non-narrative cinema as a production material, editing process and means of exhibition and distribution.
We are in the digital age, akin to a bronze age and still, so so young.