In a message dated 97-03-31 19:45:49 EST, [log in to unmask] (David
Haberstich) writes:

> Adrienne: A defense of "film as a museum tool," or even discussing a
>  museum film collection, are quite different from a recommendation to go
>  to a theater, see a commercial movie that depicts "a culture" (don't
>  they all, including Beavis and Butthead?), and put money in the
>  producer's pocket.

Now, David. I think what we are talking about here (or at least what I was
talking about) is the use of films which often are the only introduction the
mass population has to a subject or "a culture" (as opposed to culture). In
other words, the example I gave of "Once Were Warriors" is a painful but all
too realistic portrayal of contemporary impoverished Maori straddling two
worlds. A few people who I recommended it to were intrigued enough to seek
more information on the Maori. This phenomenon happened to me after seeing a
Frieda Kahlo art exhibit at the Museum of Women in the Arts. Her work moved
me and I wanted to know more about her life which so obviously inspired her
art. I consider that show to be a success for the reasons just explained, and
would consider "Once Were Warriors" to have had the same effect. Cinema is a
medium that most people are comfortable with. If included (as is done in most
exhibits these days), it has the potential to make visitors comfortable
enough to learn the information being presented in the exhibit.

If a movie relates generally or specifically to a
>  museum exhibition, or if a movie is ABOUT a museum (take "Chances
>  Are"--please!) these are also valid topics for Museum-L. I think,
>  however, that recommending people go see a movie, apropos of no specific
>  museum-related connection, using only the amorphous and flimsy excuse
>  that it's about "culture" or "a culture," and gosh, aren't museums about
>  culture too (well, some are, some aren't) is really stretching the
>  concept of relevance.

Unless I was asleep when I wrote my post, I do not think this is what I said.
However, I think it is is a valid topic for discussion - people learn about
different cultures all the time from movies. As an anthropologist, I am
always excited (and usually disappointed afterwards) when a Hollywood movie
attempts to discuss anthropological subjects (i.e. "primitive peoples"). Of
course, they usually get it wrong. But, the impact is the same: audiences
learn. The relevant topic for discussion here is, as you suggested, how do we
attract audiences to exhibits as Hollywood does to their movies. Now, don't
jump on me, of course they have more money, blah, blah,blah. But why aren't
museums working in conjunction with the movie industry on a more regular
basis to create films for museum exhibits? Production costs would certainly
be considerably lower (shorter films), and what a tax write off. Now, I am
getting ino an area that I know nothing about here, but it seems to me that
film is and can be used for educational purposes (even Selena) if one wants
to adjust their lens accordingly. Although I have not seen Selena, I am sure
it would be an interesting look at a cultural lifestyle. Hell, Wigstock, To
Wong Foo..., The Bird Cage, and a few other films about drag queens have
provided an interesting peek into that world. But, I'll bet no one is willing
to do an exhibit on drag queens in their museum.

How about discussing strategies for attracting
>  movie fans to museums...?

See above.


- Adrienne