1925 Phantom small format (was: Re: RE: Any old Blackhawk collectors out there?)
William Hooper
Was the elusive 1925 Phantom of the Opera ever availabale from some late
consumer company like Blackhawk, Niles, Ken, etc., or only last available on
Universal Show at Home ?
There's a 400' 8mm Blackhawk Phantom on eBay, & I wondered.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1484831368
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 18:56:50 GMT, in article
<tuulkj7...@corp.supernews.com>, Joseph Vitale stated...
>
>If it weren't for Blackhawk, there are many of us who may have never gotten
>into
>the silent movie hobby. In 1975 I saw a magazine ad to purchase Laurel &
>Hardy's
>"That's My Wife" for half price (about $8) in regular 8mm. I knew my
>father-in-law had an old projector for home movies, so I ordered it. When
>that
>catalog came, I spent hours going through it and marking the films I wanted.
>Life ain't been the same since!!
>Tim Lussier
>"Silents Are Golden"
>http://www.silentsaregolden
>
>
>
>
>I'm 36 years old and consider myself an "old Blackhawk guy". In the early
>seventies my Mother would take me to the local library with her. I soon
>discovered they had Blackhawk films for check out. The first one I took home
>was Chaplin's Easy Street on two 200 hundred ft. 8mm reels. I then acquired my
>own super 8 silent projector and began asking for various Blackhawk films for
>my birthday, Christmas..etc. The pride of my collection was Chaplin's complete
>Goldrush (the original 1925 version I might ad) on four 400 ft. reels. I still
>remember it was on sale for $69 dollars (This was about 1975...today you can
>get it for about $25 dollars with sound on one DVD!) .
> I had a real love for the Blackhawk company. One time on a family vacation
>away from Chicago we happened to be driving through Davenport, Iowa. I begged
>my parents to go to the Blackhawk building just so I might be able to see it.
>My father drove around Davenport for about an hour earnestly trying to find it
>but to no avail. When I was really young and didn't know any better I thought
>Blackhawk was an actual studio that produced these films of Chaplin, Laurel &
>Hardy, Little Rascals...etc. What a great studio that would have been! Can
>anybody fill me in on what the status of Blackhawk is today? I really have no
>idea.
>
>JV
Christopher Jacobs
William Hooper <w...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:lzJH7.21349$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
> Speaking of Blackhawk:
>
> Was the elusive 1925 Phantom of the Opera ever availabale from some late
> consumer company like Blackhawk, Niles, Ken, etc., or only last available
on
> Universal Show at Home ?
>
> There's a 400' 8mm Blackhawk Phantom on eBay, & I wondered.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1484831368
>
The 400 foot Blackhawk PHANTOM is as I recall really between 200 and 300
feet, an abridged version they released before they had the full-length
feature (which was the second full-length feature I ever bought, shortly
after it was announced in their catalog, and I had to buy the color Bal
Masque scene later to splice into it, providing a proof of purchase that I'd
gotten the feature from them). Interestingly the B&W version of the scene is
longer, with different takes, and an extra title, so I was glad I didn't
wait to get the pre-assembled part-color print.
The 1925 edit of PHANTOM was available in a really mediocre 8mm print (with
a reddish-brown dupe of the color scene) from the ever-popular
CineService-Vintage films (which also had a large number of "unadvertised"
rare features on a special list you could request). Back in the 70s Stan
Brakhage (speaking of name-dropping) told me he bought his 8mm print of
SUNRISE from CineService-Vintage and was also a big fan of the Classic Film
Collector.
--Christopher Jacobs
DShepFilm
the 1925 version which were copied from an original Show-at-Home. The quality
wasn't bad although it had hundreds of printed-in diagonal splices from the
source print.
I started getting Blackhawk Bulletins in the mail when I was about twelve, and
bought films whenever I could afford them. I used to imagine Davenport as a
flat country crossroads with a cornfield, a filling station, a church and
Blackhawk Films on the four corners; not too bad an abstraction, as it turned
out in 1973 when I became Vice President of the company. At that time
Blackhawk had about 90 employees, maintained a real "family" atmosphere, and
occupied a wonderful 19th-century brewery building of 27,000 square feet about
four and a half blocks up a hill overlooking the Mississippi River. (The flood
waters never got higher than about Third Street).
Blackhawk became a division of Lee Enterprises, a regional newspaper chain, in
1976. They put in their own people and I left. Founder Kent Eastin retired in
1977 after 50 years with the company, and his partner since 1947, Martin
Phelan, also left after only thirty years. When it didn't make enough money to
satisfy them, Lee sold it to three employees, who struggled with it for about
three years and then resold it to Republic Pictures about 1983. Republic
discontinued film sales, closed the Davenport facility, used the name for a
mail-order videocassette business for a couple of years, sold the film library
to me, and sold the name and mailing list to Playboy Enterprises which folded
it into its Critics Choice mailorder business. Despite the dwindling business
after 1976, everyone in the chain of ownership was well-compensated for their
efforts.
The library is now the property of Film Preservation Associates, Inc, a
California corporation with European ownership. The film preprint materials
are all conserved in the film archive of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences. Several hundred titles are still available in 16mm through our fine
online dealers, filmclassic.com and fesfilms.com. Many Blackhawk elements are
the basis of video editions produced by myself released by Kino and by Image
Entertainment; the Image releases still carry the old Blackhawk logo on the
packaging.
David Shepard
Bruce Calvert
<20011112123127...@mb-cg.aol.com>, DShepFilm stated
>Blackhawk became a division of Lee Enterprises, a regional newspaper chain, in
>1976. They put in their own people and I left. Founder Kent Eastin retired in
>1977 after 50 years with the company, and his partner since 1947, Martin
>Phelan, also left after only thirty years. When it didn't make enough money to
>satisfy them, Lee sold it to three employees, who struggled with it for about
>three years and then resold it to Republic Pictures about 1983. Republic
>discontinued film sales, closed the Davenport facility, used the name for a
>mail-order videocassette business for a couple of years, sold the film library
>to me, and sold the name and mailing list to Playboy Enterprises which folded
>it into its Critics Choice mailorder business. Despite the dwindling business
>after 1976, everyone in the chain of ownership was well-compensated for their
>efforts.
David,
What do you think caused the demise of the company? I'm sure that there were
several factors like:
Mr. Eastin and Mr. Phelan leaving the company.
High silver prices which caused film stock prices to rise.
The surging popularity of videotape.
Bad business decisions. I was very disappointed when they started selling CED
disks instead of laserdiscs. I don't think that they made any of their own
anyway, so it may not have mattered.
I have always wondered what the real causes of Blackhawks' decline were.
--
Bruce Calvert
"People say I don't take criticism well, but I say, 'What the hell do they
know?'" -- Groucho Marx
Haywood Jablomy
market, the prices of Blackhawk's films DOUBLED. Suddenly I could no longer
afford some films I had my eyes on. (I was in my late teens and was
collecting 8mm.) When silver prices went back to normal levels, the
Blackhawk prices remained high. That effectively killed off the film sales.
Borzz
dshe...@aol.com (DShepFilm) wrote:
> To answer the question about PHANTOM, ...
(snip)
Some people simply can't be thanked enough for their efforts and
dedication.
Thanks David :)
--
....Borzz
Archie Waugh
general stayed high, despite the drop back in silver prices. I was doing a lot
of photography in those days, and watched carefully as the price of silver slid
slowly back to its previous levels, while film prices stayed at the inflated
levels, never to return as far as I noticed.
Archie Waugh
In article <9sp7tg$alu3$1...@news3.infoave.net>, Haywood Jablomy says...
JR Herb
When I was in high school in the late 70's (-and you can do the math to
approximate my age),
those monthly catalogs and sales flyers from Blackhawk were a highlight of
my life. I used to pour
over them for weeks - generating new want lists. Since I got my first
part-time job(after school
at a dairy store), I was also able to combine my hobby while developing my
work-ethic, though
I didn't know it at the time, of course.
Lord, I really miss that company - these days more than ever. They were
the best, in my opinion.
You'll hear some folks on this newsgroup criticize Blackhawk - but there
always seem to be a small
group of folks who are disenchanted with any thing you care to name. I don't
think that that company
ever had a peer, before or since. They certainly lived up to their motto --
"The World's Greatest Selection of Things to Show".
Joe Herb
Bobster123
>What do you think caused the demise of the company? I'm sure that there were
>several factors like:
>
>Mr. Eastin and Mr. Phelan leaving the company.
>High silver prices which caused film stock prices to rise.
>The surging popularity of videotape.
>
>Bad business decisions. I was very disappointed when they started selling
>CED
>disks instead of laserdiscs. I don't think that they made any of their own
>anyway, so it may not have mattered.
>
>I have always wondered what the real causes of Blackhawks' decline were.
I would say all three were valid reasons.
The new management at Blackhawk just didn't understand the company or the
business.
Blackhawk tried to keep selling films, but prices went through the roof, and
everybody was getting out (Universal 8, Columbia, Disney, etc.) and getting
into video.
Blackhawk tried to get into video (even opened some franchise video stores
called "Hollywood Gold'). But- I remember being surprised when the Nostalgia
Merchant got the video rights to the Laurel and Hardy titles, when they were
almost synonymous with Blackhawk. Ted Ewing told me it was because of the
"economics" involved that the rights went to the Nostalgia Merchant. I still
wonder if getting the L&H video rights might have kept them going.
(I remember they did later get the video rights to the Little Rascals films.)
I often wonder how big film collecting would be now, had video never come
along. I suspect Blackhawk would have eventually been taken over by
Time/Warner though. :)
Beaver Lad
shenanigans of those a**hole Hunt Brothers. GEEZ, would I like to see
their heads on stakes!
==========================
In article <9sp7tg$alu3$1...@news3.infoave.net>, Haywood Jablomy
Rodney Sauer
> Lord, I really miss that company - these days more than ever. They were
> the best, in my opinion.
Hey! Don't miss 'em yet, they ain't gone. You can order the prints through
http://www.filmclassic.com/. And if you really need a catalog arriving once a
month, go print out the web site and mail it to yourself ;-)
-- Rodney
James L. Neibaur
hit, a lot of film collectors sold off their stock to buy tapes. I kept mine.
It is still fun to have people over and fire up the projectors, despite the
accesibility of VHS and DVD. And, of course, there is the afore-mentioned
sentimental attachment to the whole film collecting process.
JN
Please visit the most poorly designed web pages online:
my Favorite Movies web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/movies.html
and my Favorite Performers web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/rant.html
David B. Pearson
> Started collecting 8mm in 1970, Super 8 in 1971, and 16mm in 1974. When video
> hit, a lot of film collectors sold off their stock to buy tapes. I kept mine.
> It is still fun to have people over and fire up the projectors, despite the
> accesibility of VHS and DVD. And, of course, there is the afore-mentioned
> sentimental attachment to the whole film collecting process.
>
> JN
When I starting collecting in the late 70s, I always got the biggest thrill
out of that monthly Blackhawk catalog, mapping out what I'd buy next.
Blackhawk, to be, was (and is) always the mark of quality.
DBP
Tim Lussier
remember, Blackhawk used to have three films offered at half price each month. I
think I paid eight dollars and something for "That's My Wife" at half price, then I
turned around and got Chaplin's "One A.M." I can really identify with the time
spent on that catalog each month, marking the ones I wanted next and dreaming about
owning them all. Sadly, I've sold all of my Blackhawk collection since then, but I
do still have a few of the catalogs left that I'll pull out once in awhile and
reminisce. Does anyone remember when Blackhawk had some sort of deal where you
could buy the entire Blackhawk collection of films in Super 8mm for something like
$18,000???
Tim Lussier
"Silents Are Golden"
http://www.silentsaregolden.com
MKELO
Has anyone put some representation of them on a web site?
I also loved the artwork in Bill Bissonnette's film catalogs (the name of his
company now espcapes me!). I'd love to see them on the web, too. Sigh.
Or even Grigg's Moviedrome!
Oh, the hours spent pouring and planning over those pages!
Best,
Mk
Robert Moulton
for Keaton's Cops. I must hold a record for most times watching that film
in reverse on a bedroom wall. I was heavily into the Marx Brothers at the
same time and I remember gasping at one scene the first time I saw Cops,
it's where the cop raps his billy club on the curb of the sidewalk to get
the attention of the other policemen. In his autobiography Harpo Marx
mentions police doing this when he was a kid at the turn of the century.
Aside from Keaton himself the thing that fascinated me about the film was
that it was shot on location and you could see real cars, people, and
buildings from over fifty years earlier. My dad worked at a paper plant and
I got him to bring home a roll of paper that was eight feet high and I made
an eight foot screen in the basement which I could fill by placing the
projector at the opposite end of the basement. I only had a standard 8
projector so the image was fuzzy but who cared. I can remember running a
scene from Laurel & Hardy's Sugar Daddies over and over trying to figure out
what was on the back of a newspaper Noah Young was holding.
To get back on topic: I noticed that some of the library films came in
Blackhawk boxes, I wrote to them, got the catalog, and started that monthly
ritual of waiting for the catalog, reading it, and dreaming of the day I
could own it all. I remember two reelers going for $17.98, unfortunately I
was in Canada and when buying my first film, One Week, I got unwanted
lessons in $US/$CDN exchange rates and Canadian customs tax. Then once
those guys drove the price of silver up I couldn't afford anything anymore.
- Rob
Joseph Vitale <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tuulkj7...@corp.supernews.com...
Griff
> Joe,
>
> When I was in high school in the late 70's (-and you can do the math to
> approximate my age),
> those monthly catalogs and sales flyers from Blackhawk were a highlight of
> my life. I used to pour
> over them for weeks - generating new want lists. Since I got my first
> part-time job(after school
> at a dairy store), I was also able to combine my hobby while developing my
> work-ethic, though
> I didn't know it at the time, of course.
>
Those were the days. I too was a Blackhawk teenager in the late 70's,
and there's still a pile of the bulletins from that era cluttering up
my parent's basement.
I devoured every catalog. Could never afford to buy very many, but I
did manage to collect most of the Chaplin Mutuals in silent editions,
and a bunch of Laurel and Hardys - Two Tars, Big Business... and in
the days before I got a S8 sound Bell and Howell, I even bought the
silent versions of Hog Wild, Helpmates, Dirty Work... (remember those
long, long title cards?)
Then, off to college. VHS... and it was down hill from there.
Thanks for the memories.
James L. Neibaur
marking pen and mark off the films I would buy. Dreaming....
Over many many years I did manage to put together a decent collection of films,
and I am glad that I kept them. Most of my collector friends from back then
didn't. Some just casually gave all their 8mm silents to me when they hit 25
or so. I guess for them it was just a phase, while it was something I
genuinely cared about.
Foto28
Blackhawk. Drooling over the goodies in the catalogue, picking out a few to add
to birthday and Christmas want lists, buying a few others as high-school
finances permitted....the usual assortment of Chaplin and L&H shorts for the
most part, with the rare feature such as PHANTOM on occasion. Seeing that they
offered PHANTOM and HUNCHBACK, I wondered why they didn't also sell LONDON
AFTER MIDNIGHT...the stills looked so good, and I didn't realize that films
could become lost...
After buying from Blackhawk for a year or two, I discovered that we had our
very own film supplier in South Bend...Niles Film Products. Aaack! A few
purchases from them and I quickly decided I'd stick to Blackhawk.
Thanks for bringing up fond memories...
Danny
norm...@pacbell.net
But I have hardware and software to show 8mm, Super 8, 9.5mm, 16mm and
silent 35mm films.
Lots of the film is Blackhawk. My first purchase was a Super 8 sound
sampler with Kent Easton promising, "The real fun lies in the future...",
and switching on a Eumig projector pointed at the camera.
And of course there is the miles and miles of home movies in every guage.
As far as film and video are concerned, I follow the advice of the old
doggerel:
"Make new friends, but keep the old.
These are silver, those are gold."
Norm Lehfeldt
Richard Ward
> After buying from Blackhawk for a year or two, I discovered that we had our
> very own film supplier in South Bend...Niles Film Products. Aaack! A few
> purchases from them and I quickly decided I'd stick to Blackhawk.
>
I was a confirmed Blackhawk collector in the early 1970s when I saw an
ad in the Superior Bulk Film catalog for a film that Blackhawk didn't
have (yet), an 8mm print of "The Gold Rush." I ordered it. It was a
Niles print that was so bad that in some scenes Chaplin appears as a
caricature: black mustache and eyebrows on a white field. I've never
found "The Gold Rush" especially entertaining, and I think this
introduction to it is why. I have an almost-as-bad print of "The
Playhouse" from Niles, which helpfully concludes with a full-screen
address for a catalog. I'm sure many ran for a pencil to jot down the
address of a company whose fine work they had been enjoying for the
past 20 minutes.
Thanks for the memories.
Richard Ward
Foto28
>address of a company whose fine work they had been enjoying for the
>past 20 minutes.
I think I bought a couple of 8mm shorts from Niles by the time it dawned on me
that their products all seemed to look similarly bad. (Remembering that I was
about 13 at the time...) The clincher was a print of WAXWORKS: not only did it
have incredibly dreadful picture quality, but also had obvious pieces missing
and as a bonus, part of it was printed upside-down! I took it back with a
vigorous complaint, and they took it back in trade for other items. What they
were, I don't recall, but I don't doubt that they were also dreadful...
Danny
Christopher Jacobs
Foto28 <fot...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20011114142650...@mb-cj.aol.com...
Yet Niles occasionally had some very good 16mm prints, such as SVENGALI,
BLUEBEARD, and INVISIBLE GHOST (although that one had only so-so soundtrack
quality). You had to be sure to check the catalog descriptions that included
the words "from 35mm" or "good print." If they didn't brag that it was a
good print, odds are there was a very good reason--it wasn't! Another
unusual Niles practice was having used print sales included in their
catalog, but if they were out of the print you wanted they would sell you a
new one at the advertised used price!
Ah, the good old pre-VCR days of Blackhawk, Niles, Cine-Service Vintage,
Griggs-Moviedrome, and Thunderbird... just the smell of a new print, fresh
out of the box and threaded up for the first time seemed to be worth the
price back then.
--Christopher Jacobs
Richard Ward
> Griggs-Moviedrome, and Thunderbird... just the smell of a new print, fresh
> out of the box and threaded up for the first time seemed to be worth the
> price back then.
Well, I just enjoyed that experience again, with a brand new 16mm
EmGee print of Chaplin's "Cruel, Cruel Love." Cost of Print: $120.
Being able to view a brand new print of a Chaplin film I'd never seen
before: priceless.
Richard Ward
ChaneyFan
BLUEBEARD, and INVISIBLE GHOST (although that one had only so-so soundtrack
quality).
They also had a pretty nice 16mm of THE 39 STEPS. Niles stuff was almost
always terrible, but there were a few OK prints in the bunch. I recall that in
their print of THE GARAGE though, you couldn't tell which one was Fatty and
which was Buster!
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
Richard M Roberts
>
> >>>Yet Niles occasionally had some very good 16mm prints, such as SVENGALI,
> BLUEBEARD, and INVISIBLE GHOST (although that one had only so-so soundtrack
> quality).
>
> They also had a pretty nice 16mm of THE 39 STEPS. Niles stuff was almost
> always terrible, but there were a few OK prints in the bunch. I recall that in
> their print of THE GARAGE though, you couldn't tell which one was Fatty and
> which was Buster!
> ===============================
> Jon Mirsalis
My Niles print of THE GARAGE is quite good actually. I think it depended
more on their lab having a good day. And I've held onto a few other
Niles prints that were good. I think their prints ran hot and cold. I
have several of the Pathe Our Gang's in Niles prints that are fine, and
a very good print of THE MARK OF ZORRO that I got for a bargain. I
believe they ended up with some of Bill Bissonette's Vintage Cine
Service negatives on the PD titles.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
ChaneyFan
I may be remembering wrong. It might have been CONEY ISLAND, but I remember
one of those two was truly awful.
John Aldrich
<repro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>My Niles print of THE GARAGE is quite good actually. I think it depended
>more on their lab having a good day. And I've held onto a few other
>Niles prints that were good. I think their prints ran hot and cold. I
>have several of the Pathe Our Gang's in Niles prints that are fine, and
>a very good print of THE MARK OF ZORRO that I got for a bargain. I
>believe they ended up with some of Bill Bissonette's Vintage Cine
>Service negatives on the PD titles.
>
>RICHARD M ROBERTS
While it's true that some Niles prints were better than others, what
was true in general about Niles is that there was virtually nothing
in their catalog that couldn't be had in better prints elsewhere.
That is because the vast majority of what they sold were dupes of
other companies releases. The 'exclusive' titles they had were
originally put out by Entertainment Films and a couple of other long
since defunct distributors.
The print I had of THE GARAGE pretty much fits Jon's description. In
fact, I have yet to see a print of THE GARAGE that would qualify as
'pretty good', including the ones on David Shepard's SLAPSTICK
ENCYCLOPEDIA and the one on Kino's recent DVD. They are 'watchable'
and you can discern which one is Fatty and which is Buster, but that's
about it.
I also had THE MARK OF ZORRO and some of the OUR GANGS from
Niles. MARK OF ZORRO was one of their better prints, but certainly
not as good as Blackhawk's, and it inexplicable was missing some key
shots in the climactic chase. The OUR GANG's such as SUNDOWN LTD.
weren't bad, but obviously were dupes.
I also heard that Niles got Bill Bissonette's negatives, but to the
best of my knowledge those never made it into the Niles catalog.
Bissonette had some marvelous things that were not available
elsewhere, and his 'private list' was a silent film collectors dream
back in the early 1970's.
--John A.
Christopher Snowden
> While it's true that some Niles prints were better than others, what
> was true in general about Niles is that there was virtually nothing
> in their catalog that couldn't be had in better prints elsewhere.
> That is because the vast majority of what they sold were dupes of
> other companies releases.
>
> The OUR GANGs such as SUNDOWN LTD.
> weren't bad, but obviously were dupes.
>
I've seen the Niles print of Our Gang's "Big Business" (not the L&H
film), and it's definitely a bootleg of the Blackhawk edition, complete with
Blackhawk's intertitles. I have a Niles print of the Keystone "Dollars and
Sense," and it seems to be the same thing.
Sometime back in the late 1970s, after starting out as a film collector
with all-Blackhawk stuff, I began buying prints from Niles, Griggs, Glenn
Photo and through the Reel Images catalog. Occasionally I'd end up with
something that looked great, like Harold Lloyd's "Just Neighbors" or D.W.
Griffith's "The Goddess of Sagebrush Gulch," but usually I'd be a little
disappointed.
By the time I was ready to do all my buying from Blackhawk again, the
Hunt Brothers and the Iranian Hostage Crisis had spiked the price of silver,
film prices shot up by 150%, scores of titles were dropped from the catalog,
and the hobby was all but killed. I wished I'd just stayed with Blackhawk all
along, and bought up those films I always meant to buy eventually, and never
did.
I became a born-again film collector later on, and I now have (in 16mm)
a lot of the things I always wanted on super 8. But I'll always miss getting
that Blackhawk Bulletin in the mail every month!
Chris Snowden
Unknown Video
http://www.unknownvideo.com
This week: The Man with the Megaphone
http://www.unknownvideo.com/it.shtml
Bobster123
>While it's true that some Niles prints were better than others, what
>was true in general about Niles is that there was virtually nothing
>in their catalog that couldn't be had in better prints elsewhere.
>That is because the vast majority of what they sold were dupes of
>other companies releases.
My Niles print of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD even had the Hollywood Film Exchange
logo still on the beginning. You'd think they would have gotten rid of that!
And- like most of my Niles prints- it was an overexposed washed-out mess.
I remember they released the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films on Super 8-
but I later heard that the source they got the rights from only had the TV
rights, and didn't really have the authority to give them the Super 8 rights.
Richard M Roberts
.
>
> I also heard that Niles got Bill Bissonette's negatives, but to the
> best of my knowledge those never made it into the Niles catalog.
> Bissonette had some marvelous things that were not available
> elsewhere, and his 'private list' was a silent film collectors dream
> back in the early 1970's.
>
> --John A.
The only negatives Niles got from Bissonette were some of his PD titles,
stuff like THE LOST WORLD, SPARROWS, THE LODGER, HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE
DAME, UNCLE TOM'S CABIN(1914), and others.
And saying that, that reminds me of another quite good print thet I got
form Niles, and that is one off the Bissonette negative from SPARROWS,
which in my book is actually better than the Blackhawk one I also had
which frankly was on the soft side and had a negative scratch in the
dream sequence where Jesus appears.
RICHARD M ROBERTS
ChaneyFan
elsewhere, and his 'private list' was a silent film collectors dream
back in the early 1970's.
I thought I knew about every private list there ever was, but never heard of
anything rare that Bissonette had. I know Bob Lee certainly had a magnificent
list of negs, but what did Bissonette have that was unavailable elsewhere?
John Aldrich
Too many years have passed for me to remember all the titles, but I
remember clearly thar Bissonette had numerous titles that were not
available via Bob Lee or anywhere else that I was aware of.
The amusing thing I do remember is that Bill would type up the private
list in 'code' since the films listed were still under copyright.
Wings became 'Airplanes', Our Hospitality became 'A Southern Feud',
Noah's Ark became 'The Great Flood' and so forth.
Cine Service Vintage Films was one of the most active film suppliers
at one time, but Bill over extended himself with a mind boggling
number of new releases and at the same time switching over entirely to
Metro Kalvar film stock, which slowed delivery of prints to a trickle.
By the way, for those that don't know, Bill went from silent films to
trad jazz and has for many years, (as 'Big Bill Bissonette'), played
trombone for a New Orleans style revival jazz band.
--John A.
Derek Gee
declare Bankruptcy because of it.
My Super-8 filmmaking hobby effectively ended around that time as film
prices were high and video prices were coming down!
Derek Gee
Beaver Lad <feb...@ralnig.gomez> wrote in message
news:121120011909174356%feb...@ralnig.gomez...
CHan534270
Blackhawk Bulletin cover to cover each time it came in the mail. I also eagerly
awaited the next issue of The Classic Film Collector. I still have a few
issues, but they are sad to look at now... all those great companies out of
business...
Craig Handley
Bob Birchard
> I often wonder how big film collecting would be now, had video never come
> along. I suspect Blackhawk would have eventually been taken over by
> Time/Warner though. :)
I doubt it. There never was a huge collectors market. When I was handling
the Super 8mm Chaplin releases for rbc films I think we sold something like 160
prints of "Modern Times" and many fewer of the other titles.
Video was just coming in and everyone thought that at a price of $84.95 for a
video as opposed to $225.00 for a Super 8mm Chaplin feature that the customers
would be lining up around the block to pick these things off at "bargain basement"
rates. No soap. It took rentals to save video stores, and cheap sell through
prices to convince people to buy--and they still don't buy the silents in
mass-market numbers.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Bob Birchard
catalogue in our youth--scouring the catalogue, marking what we wished to buy, and
dreaming about acquisitions to come.
I know the economics of publishing and mailing catalogues is different today,
and the web may make even the idea of a monthly catalogue obsolete. But I'd bet
that for teenagers the lure of a monthly catalogue arriving in the mail would still
be irresistible. Teens get little mail addressed to them (except cards from
grandparents and other relatives), and there was something about the Blackhawk
catalogue with its personal messages from Kent Eastin, David Shepard and Richard
Bann, as well as the photos and the descriptions of the films that made them a
treasure. Let's face it, the bulk of the catalogue was the same every
month--Blackhawk only released three or four new titles a month at the height of
their power--still, there was magic in it.
Bob Birchard
> >>>My Niles print of THE GARAGE is quite good actually.
>
> I may be remembering wrong. It might have been CONEY ISLAND, but I remember
> one of those two was truly awful.
My memory of Niles is different. To me they started off with great quality
and service and then success went to the head of one of the owners and he went
"Hollywood"--gold chains, large gut, picking up hippy babes on the Sunset strip
on his ever more frequent trips from Indiana to the west coast--and first
gradually, then quite suddenly the quality and service turned to crap and then
the company evaporated.
The Niles print of the 1925 M-G-M Studio Tour is still one of the prizes of
my collection.
Bob Birchard
> My Niles print of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD even had the Hollywood Film Exchange
> logo still on the beginning. You'd think they would have gotten rid of that!
> And- like most of my Niles prints- it was an overexposed washed-out mess.
You probably got a Hollywood Film Exchange print. Niles was a sub-distributor
for HFE.
Bob Birchard
> I know the economics of publishing and mailing catalogues is different today,
> and the web may make even the idea of a monthly catalogue obsolete. But I'd bet
> that for teenagers the lure of a monthly catalogue arriving in the mail would still
> be irresistible.
In writing this I realize that my intent was not entirely clear. I doubt that a
monthly catalogue could revive film sales--but it might do wonders to perk up youmg
interest i silent video and DVD titles.
Bob Birchard
> I know the economics of publishing and mailing catalogues is different today,
> and the web may make even the idea of a monthly catalogue obsolete. But I'd bet
> that for teenagers the lure of a monthly catalogue arriving in the mail would still
> be irresistible.
In writing this I realize that my intent was not entirely clear. I doubt that a
monthly catalogue could revive film sales--but it might do wonders to perk up young
interest in silent video and DVD titles.
Greta de Groat
technically minded i couldn't imagine actually buying films and having to obtain and run
a projector. But i did see Blackhawk advertised in TV Guide, and my best friend and i
ooohed and aaahed over the ad, and thought maybe someday in the distant future. I ran
across the ad the other day in a movie scrapbook where i had stashed it, next to the star
obituaries from newspapers and the discarded Photoplay magazines from a neighbor. Never
dreamed of video!
Also regarding Blackhawk, i was poking around in OCLC and ran across a record for a
Blackhawk film called Memories of the silent stars no. 2 : behind the scenes with the
stars, which has Bow, Arbuckle, Chaney, and Norma Talmadge listed among the
participants. Does anyone have this one? Has it made it to video yet? Or aired on
TCM? It sounds interesting!
greta
Precode
>
>Bob Birchard wrote:
>
>> I know the economics of publishing and mailing catalogues is different today,
>> and the web may make even the idea of a monthly catalogue obsolete. But I'd bet
>> that for teenagers the lure of a monthly catalogue arriving in the mail would still
>> be irresistible.
>
> In writing this I realize that my intent was not entirely clear. I doubt that a
>monthly catalogue could revive film sales--but it might do wonders to perk up young
>interest in silent video and DVD titles.
>--
Boy, are you an optimist! A friend of mine recently let his teenaged son have
friends over for a Halloween party, and when he suggested running his new DVD of
YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, he practically had food thrown at him. HAUNTED SPOOKS?
That'll be the day.
Mike S.
"Oh, my, you must've been the biggest one in your class."--Gene Hackman in YF
James Roots
> Bob Birchard wrote:
>
>> I know the economics of publishing and mailing catalogues is different today,
>> and the web may make even the idea of a monthly catalogue obsolete. But I'd bet
>> that for teenagers the lure of a monthly catalogue arriving in the mail would still
>> be irresistible.
>
> In writing this I realize that my intent was not entirely clear. I doubt that a
> monthly catalogue could revive film sales--but it might do wonders to perk up youmg
> interest i silent video and DVD titles.
But Bob, how would you get teenagers to read it?
Solve that, and the rest is a walk in the park, I'm sure!
Jim,
whose 10-year-old son is already a teenager.
Bobster123
>> In writing this I realize that my intent was not entirely clear. I
>doubt that a
>>monthly catalogue could revive film sales--but it might do wonders to perk
>up young
>>interest in silent video and DVD titles.
>>--
>
>Boy, are you an optimist! A friend of mine recently let his teenaged son have
>friends over for a Halloween party, and when he suggested running his new DVD
>of
>YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, he practically had food thrown at him. HAUNTED SPOOKS?
>That'll be the day.
>
>Mike S.
>
Back in my film collecting days, old movies were pretty much all that was
available. It was great just being able to buy and watch anything at the
time. Today, kids take owning/watching movies at home for granted and are
only interested in the current stuff.
CHan534270
>If it makes you feel any better, the Hunt brothers were forced to
>declare Bankruptcy because of it.
That reminds me of a joke that circulated around back then.
Q: How do you make a small fortune?
A: Put the Hunt Brothers in charge of a large fortune and wait!
Craig Handley
William Hooper
For a party, they want something exciting.
They want a physical response related to the emotional manipulation that
exciting movies provide. Young Frankenstein is enjoyable, but not exciting.
Older people enjoy an absence of stress, younger folks be eating thrills.
A park bench is not the Tilt-A-Whirl.
James L. Neibaur
>>friends over for a Halloween party, and when he suggested running his new
>DVD
>>of
>>YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, he practically had food thrown at him.
I run older films regularly in my classroom (sort of a once-a-week treat).
These are low level at-risk kids, mostly minorities, at a school for emotional
disturbances and behavior disorders. The "bad" kids who got kicked out of all
the other schools.
We have seen City Lights, The Kid, Angels With Dirty Faces, Boys Town,
Steamboat Bill Jr, Duck Soup, It's a Gift, etc. All have gone over
exceptionally well. They are curious about the older films and react well to
the silents. And these kids are only 13 years old.
Of course I choose films that are accessible to their level, and concentrate
mostly on comedies. When I did this for higher level students in the past, the
films went over as well (and I was able to toss in something slightly headier
like Potemkin).
This is a learning experience, so I introduce each film and discuss it a bit
before showing it. And there is a concluding discussion that follows. But it
gives me a chance to introduce an area of culture to these kids that they
likely would not encounter elsewhere. And it helps my current lot work on
their social skills (sitting still, and quietly, for the duration of a 90
minute movie is something of an accomplishment for them).
My son is finishing high school. Throughout his teen years when he would have
friends over they would ask me to run one of my 16mm films for them (usually
short comedies with the likes of Laurel and Hardy or Chaplin). I like making
myself scarce during my son's parties, of course, but the kids would ask him
"isn't your dad showing us a movie this time?"
Bottom line --- I have had very good experiences running older films for
younger audiences.
So it isn't *all* kids that would throw food upon seeing Young Frankenstein.
Just those who can't discern whether Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey is the greater
comic genius (we all know it is Pauly Shore).
JN
Please visit the most poorly designed web pages online:
my Favorite Movies web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/movies.html
and my Favorite Performers web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/rant.html
Bob Birchard
I would have thrown things, too. "Young Frankenstein" has never made me crack a smile
let alone laugh out loud.
It is true, that we may very well have been buying "Halloween IV" and other such
things if they had been available in our time rather than prints of (then) 50 year old
movies--but I doubt it. There will always be a fringe audience for the old stuff, and
there always will be. And those who get recruited to the cause when they're young will
have the strangest affinity for the old stuff in later life.
As for Teens reading such a catalogue--I'm sorry, but the "Johnny can't read" fear
is to coin a phrase: totally bogus, man!
Borders Book Stores, the internet and Harry Potter all prove that kids can read--and
in fact in the "good old days" of the early 1940's only about 35 percent of the adult
population had graduated from high school whereas today more than 85% of the adult
population has graduated from high school. The republic is in no danger of having an
ignorant populace--unless, of course, school vouchers get voted in and then only the rich
will get a decent education.
Bob Birchard
> Another
> unusual Niles practice was having used print sales included in their
> catalog, but if they were out of the print you wanted they would sell you a
> new one at the advertised used price!
It was indeed unusual, but this wasn't the reason for the practice.
Buried in the "used" list were a number of definitely un-PD titles and this was
a gimmick to sell new prints without getting heat from the Feds. I remember
being astonished that a "used" print of "The Kid Brother" was for sale. I
ordered it and was equally surprised to find that it was a brand new lab print
when I opened the box.
Christopher Snowden
>
> Also regarding Blackhawk, i was poking around in OCLC and ran across a record for a
> Blackhawk film called Memories of the silent stars no. 2 : behind the scenes with the
> stars, which has Bow, Arbuckle, Chaney, and Norma Talmadge listed among the
> participants. Does anyone have this one? Has it made it to video yet? Or aired on
> TCM? It sounds interesting!
>
With David Shepard's blessings, I compiled all six of those "Memories of the Silent
Stars" chapters a few years ago, and made a video of them, available at the address below.
There are some interesting things in there: a quiet evening at home with Alma Rubens, Tom Mix
goes to Washington, Chaplin and Marie Dressler dance at a bond rally, the Gish sisters pose
for Mary Pickford, and more!
Chris Snowden
Unknown Video
http://www.unknownvideo.com
This week: Looking Ahead
http://www.unknownvideo.com/it.shtml
greta de groat
out that it changes weekly i check it regularly
greta
Tim Lussier
I used to show an occasional silent comedy or two in my classroom (haven't taught
in about 13 years now) on my Super 8 projector. The kids - all ability levels -
loved them. However, they also were a captive audience whose only other
alternative would be working in their textbooks. I don't mean to be negative. I
think the kids liked that stuff, but they do have too much available to them now
with cable TV and video stores. I practically raised my two kids on silent movies
and stuff from the 30's and '40's. However, the older they got, especially into
their later teen years, the harder it was to get them to sit down for a silent
movie. When I started collecting from Blackhawk in the mid-seventies, being able
to watch a movie at home was a real treat. These days, with video, DVD, video
stores and such, it's just too easy and too much to choose from.
Can anyone comment on the college age crowd? That seems to be a receptive age
group, isn't it??
Tim Lussier
"Silents Are Golden"
http://www.silentsaregolden.com
Christopher Snowden
> Oh, thanks Chris! And, by the way, i'm really enjoying your "It" column--now that i've figured
> out that it changes weekly i check it regularly
Thanks, Greta... this week I threw in a Pauline Frederick item just for you!
Chris Snowden
Unknown Video
http://www.unknownvideo.com
This week: More Quotable Quotes
http://www.unknownvideo.com/it.shtml
Dan Auiler
invariably, at the end of the semester, the silent films are voted as their
favorites. This past summer's Upward Bound cinema class voted a tie between
Keaton's One Week and Dancer in the Dark as their favorites for the summer
(beating any number of other great films--from Citizen Kane to Run Lola
Run).
I teach at Carson High School in the LA area and have had some discussions
with the principal about using "silent" films to improve literacy. I use
them because the kids love them--even the tiniest gem from the recent
Treasures broadcasts on TCM holds their attention as no other films do.
Dan Auiler
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> Borders Book Stores, the internet and Harry Potter all prove that kids can read--and
> in fact in the "good old days" of the early 1940's only about 35 percent of the adult
> population had graduated from high school whereas today more than 85% of the adult
> population has graduated from high school. The republic is in no danger of having an
> ignorant populace--unless, of course, school vouchers get voted in and then only the rich
> will get a decent education.
>
determine which institution shall receive the K-12 education subsidy
that the taxpayers spend on their children will produce the results
you predict? This has not been the case in countries which support
parent control.
>
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg.
16, "Comparitive Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore,
the regression results indicate that countries where private education
is more widespread perform sigificantly better than countries where
it is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
>
MK. Singapore, Belgium, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland,
Sweden, Czech Republic, among others support a parrent's choice of
school.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
ChaneyFan
I do homeschool my kids!
But I think Bob's original assertion is correct.
William Hooper
Kirkpatrick) =====
My dentist, who sees a wide cross section of people of different ages,
economic brackets, education levels, residential areas, etc. told me that he
can always tell the homeschooled children. He says that they're slower in
conversational comprehension than others their same age, less articulate,
are
more unfamilar with concepts & facts that are commonly known by children of
that age who go to school, & have varying, odd socialization failures. He
says his impression is that homeschooling is more about the parents'
politics,
personality, or desire for that homeschool money.
Mr. Moose
Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>Bob Birchard wrote:
>>
>MK. Discussion deleted...
>>
>> Borders Book Stores, the internet and Harry Potter all prove that kids can read--and
>> in fact in the "good old days" of the early 1940's only about 35 percent of the adult
>> population had graduated from high school whereas today more than 85% of the adult
>> population has graduated from high school. The republic is in no danger of having an
>> ignorant populace--unless, of course, school vouchers get voted in and then only the rich
>> will get a decent education.
>>
>MK. What leads you ro suppose that giving to parents the power to
>determine which institution shall receive the K-12 education subsidy
>that the taxpayers spend on their children will produce the results
>you predict? This has not been the case in countries which support
>parent control.
Of course, other countries don't even attempt to do what the U.S., and
especially California attempt - educate EVERYONE to a high school
diploma, regardless of income, gender, race, or language spoken.
California has almost 200 different languages spoken by students at
home, and yet tries to educate EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
Comparing that to other countries is guaranteed to produce skewed
results. Parents have the choice of where their children go to school,
it's just that if they want somthing other than what is already paid
for and ready to go, they have to pay for it, as they should. A public
education is a right and a priviledge, a private education is a
self-sposored alternative, not a right and not a priviledge.
Mark
ChaneyFan
>>>My dentist, who sees a wide cross section of people of different ages,
economic brackets, education levels, residential areas, etc. told me that he
can always tell the homeschooled children. He says that they're slower in
conversational comprehension than others their same age, less articulate, are
more unfamilar with concepts & facts that are commonly known by children of
that age who go to school, & have varying, odd socialization failures. He says
his impression is that homeschooling is more about the parents' politics,
personality, or desire for that homeschool money.
This is seriously OT, but I have to respond. Your dentist is a moron. The
facts are that homeschooled kids score 81 points higher on the SAT, are better
adjusted socially, and do astonishingly well in college. Both of my kids are
homeschooled and are extremely well socialized (why not, since they do theater,
choir, soccer, and a dozen other group activities with kids). My daughter is
not quite 11 and is doing pre-Algebra...3 years ahead of her age group. This
past year the winner of the International Science Medal, the top three placers
in the national Spelling Bee, and the winner of the national Geography Bee were
*all* homeschoolers. Some public schools are trying to get the homeschooled
kids ousted from the competitions because they are blowing the other kids out
of the water.
Here's a quote from Time magazine on a 1992 study done by Univ of Florida in
which behaviors of home schoolers and public schoolers were compared: "(the
study found that) home schoolers were generally more patient and less
competitive. They tended to introduce themsevles to one another more; they
didn't fight as much. And the home schoolers were much more prone to exchange
addresses and phone numbers. In short, they behaved like miniature adults."
Stanford University is so hot to recruit homeschoolers that for the past 4-5
years they've had an annual Homeschoolers Weekend where they invite
homeschoolers to visit the campus where they recruit the hell out of them. The
reason? A friend of mine who took her homeschooled daughter was told, "Every
year we turn down 100 kids who have 1600 on the SATs...because they're boring.
Homeschoolers tend to be a much more interesting lot."
Do your homework...rather than listening to your dentist...and you'll find the
homeschoolers outperform every other group of kids. And with a teacher-student
ratio of 1:1 or 1:2, it's easy to see why.
Mr. Moose
<snip>
Jon, could you come up with a reference somewhere? While I have no
doubt that home schooling can be successful, I haven't seen an actual
reference in your post, and would like to explore further.
Mark
Mr. Moose
>This is seriously OT, but I have to respond. Your dentist is a moron. The
>facts are that homeschooled kids score 81 points higher on the SAT, are better
>adjusted socially, and do astonishingly well in college. Both of my kids are
>homeschooled and are extremely well socialized (why not, since they do theater,
>choir, soccer, and a dozen other group activities with kids). My daughter is
>not quite 11 and is doing pre-Algebra...3 years ahead of her age group.
Very possible - you are educating one child, whereas the classroom
teacher is educating 30 or so from different backgrounds which value
education differently, etc. etc. It's impossible for a classroom
teacher to scream through the materials.
<snip>
>
>Here's a quote from Time magazine on a 1992 study done by Univ of Florida in
>which behaviors of home schoolers and public schoolers were compared: "(the
>study found that) home schoolers were generally more patient and less
>competitive. They tended to introduce themsevles to one another more; they
>didn't fight as much. And the home schoolers were much more prone to exchange
>addresses and phone numbers. In short, they behaved like miniature adults."
>
This is a fault of competitive schooling - cooperative schooling can
produce results similar to what you demonstrate here. But, teacher
education must come a long way before that will be a reality.
(Can you tell that I teach? Public school, third grade.)
Anyways, I have no fault with home schooling, although I get annoyed
when somebody states that a particular education method is ABSOLUTELY
superior. There are people who are incapable of raising their kids,
much less home-schooling them, and therefore home-schooling would be a
bad idea for them.
(My district recently opened up a home-school academy, which gives
teacher support to home-school children. It's very popular.)
Going back to the previous topic:I am against vouchers, not because
they pose a threat to public schools (they don't) but because they
don't fit the educational philosophy of this country, which is to
provide a free PUBLIC education for all. Sending students to a private
school is fine, but we first would need to adjust the philosophy and
guidelines for schooling in this country.
Fascinating.
Mark
Eric Grayson
live in California, which is a different part of the world.
In the south or in parts of the midwest, there are A LOT of people who
home-school because they don't want their children exposed to "liberal"
ideas, like evolution, non-fundamentalist religion, or (in DW Atkinson's
case) they want to indoctrinate their kids in the anti-government
gun-culture. [DW, I'm kidding about you, but walking into Mill End in Bay
City without a gun permit is something scary!]
The people across the street from me are anti-evolutionists and home
school. Their kids are slow, not very conversational, etc. They got it
from their parents. But they can preach up a blue streak and they can tell
you how evil Darwin was.
I don't dispute the statistics you cite; I'll wager, though, that they'd be
even more impressive if we factored out Michigan, Indiana, Kansas, and most
of the South.
Eric
Frederica
Eric Grayson wrote:
> Jon, I hate to say this, but that dentist might NOT have been a moron. You
> live in California, which is a different part of the world.
>
> In the south or in parts of the midwest, there are A LOT of people who
> home-school because they don't want their children exposed to "liberal"
> ideas, like evolution, non-fundamentalist religion, or (in DW Atkinson's
> case) they want to indoctrinate their kids in the anti-government
> gun-culture. [DW, I'm kidding about you, but walking into Mill End in Bay
> City without a gun permit is something scary!]
Oh, ya know, that occurs here in California too. I think homeschooling is
like anything else, it has the potential for great benefit or great abuse--it
depends on how you use it.
> The people across the street from me are anti-evolutionists and home
> school. Their kids are slow, not very conversational, etc. They got it
> from their parents. But they can preach up a blue streak and they can tell
> you how evil Darwin was.
Thereby pretty much proving Darwin's theory. Do you see these kids winning
Nobels? I see them as more cheap labor for McDonalds. It's sad for the kids,
yes, but essentially parents who do this to their children are shooting off
their own feet. It's akin to the Chinese and the Iranians shutting down
internet cafes. In their attempts to control how people think, they remove
opportunities for people to develop high level computer skills, thereby
destroying the one of the few hopes they have of economic mobility. Welcome
to the third world.
I suspect that Jon's children are positively frightening in their precocity
and would probably have found Mozart kinda slow. Jon is not the type of
person who would feel a need to squash that.
Frederica
Bruce Calvert
Grayson stated
I'm with Eric. While home-schooling should certainly be allowed so that
intelligent, pro-active parents can teach their children better than a public
school, in Texas things are much like Eric describes. Here, some people
home-school their kids so that they won't be around so-called "bad influences"
like African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, evolution, rock music, etc. That woman
in Houston that allegedly murdered all of her kids because of post-partum
depression was trying to home-school her kids (although most were not of school
age yet) because she and her husband belonged to a conservative church.
--
Bruce Calvert
"People say I don't take criticism well, but I say, 'What the hell do they
know?'" -- Groucho Marx
Eric Grayson
>woman
>in Houston that allegedly murdered all of her kids because of post-partum
>depression was trying to home-school her kids (although most were not of
>school
>age yet) because she and her husband belonged to a conservative church.
>
woman, please call me. I understand that she was depressed, that everyone
in her family suspected it, and I STILL have no sympathy for her.
I promise to be really depressed when I pull the switch.
As far as I'm concerned, she ranks third under bin Laden, who's topped by
the most evil person I can imagine: the guy who diluted the chemotherapy
drugs. I've had 4-5 personal friends die of cancer in the last few years.
I think the worst torture you can give someone is to give them
chemotherapy, and stringing that out (or nullifying it) makes a bad thing
even worse. Death is way too good for these people.
OK, enough politics from me today.
Eric (who wonders why arch-conservatives are generally anti-abortion but
pro-death penalty)
D.W. Atkinson
government.
Maybe the home schooled kids seemed slower to the dentist because they
think about what they were going to say instead of blurting out a
response. Maybe.
My son is in first grade and I already have to deprogram him on a weekly
basis because some of the "facts" taught him in school are not true.
It's a learning experience for both of us.
Take the number of miles of the rain-forrest cleared everyday and
multiply that by the number of days since that "fact" has been announced
and taught in schools.
Eric, the tree cutters should have been to your house a long time ago.
From what I know, the best home schooling setup is a network of adult
professionals (with kids themselves) each teaching different subjects.
It gives the parents a break and gives the kids real world knowledge.
Dennis
Foto28
>>even more impressive if we factored out Michigan, Indiana, Kansas, and most
>>of the South.
Now, Eric...we're not ALL Dark Age bumpkins in Indiana. Mostly, perhaps, but
not ALL ;)
Danny Burk
www.dannyburk.com
Frederica
>From what I know, the best home schooling setup is a network of adult
>professionals (with kids themselves) each teaching different subjects.
>It gives the parents a break and gives the kids real world knowledge.
We could get into a long and fruitless discussion about programming and
deprogramming--pretty much everything you teach a kid is programming of some
kind. This network you speak of sounds very interesting. When you say
professionals do you mean professional teachers or professional whatevers? I
see a lot of possibilities with home schooling--for instance, I can't imagine
that Jon's kids aren't learning a lot about music, which is not something
they'd get in a lot of public schools any more. I'll even bet they get
schooling in films.
It doesn't, however, escape my notice that most of the parents I've seen doing
home-schooling seem to be women, and I can't help having the unpleasant
suspicion that to a lot of people, home-schooling is just another way to get
women out of the workplace and into economic dependence. And that's acceptable
too, as long as the woman is fully aware of what that is going to mean years
down the road. An examination of the poverty statistics in the US turns up
some mighty ugly facts; a huge portion of the people living under the poverty
line are older women. A lot of those rat-poor women were housewives and
mothers, and although we get told every day how valuable those services are to
society, when it comes right down to it, they ain't worth a dime, are they?
Frederica
ChaneyFan
doubt that home schooling can be successful, I haven't seen an actual
reference in your post, and would like to explore further.
Time magazine has done a few good articles that cited various studies and
statistics. Try the 9/11/2000 issue as well as the 8/27/2001 cover story.
ChaneyFan
when somebody states that a particular education method is ABSOLUTELY
superior. There are people who are incapable of raising their kids,
much less home-schooling them, and therefore home-schooling would be a
bad idea for them.
I don't disagree. Homeschooling is *not* for everyone. But my experience is
that nearly all the homeschooled kids I have met fit the pattern I describe.
ChaneyFan
professionals (with kids themselves) each teaching different subjects.
It gives the parents a break and gives the kids real world knowledge.
Exactly. Eric is right that some of the homeschooled kids from fundamentalist
homes who never see the world at all are going to grow up warped. But they
would grow up warped if they went to public schools.
My kids happen to be in a non-religious affiliated groups that is mostly Drs.,
lawyers, and software engineers, and they are an astonishingly well adapted
group of kids.
Karamzin
> >>>Anyways, I have no fault with home schooling, although I get annoyed
> when somebody states that a particular education method is ABSOLUTELY
> superior. There are people who are incapable of raising their kids,
> much less home-schooling them, and therefore home-schooling would be a
> bad idea for them.
>
> I don't disagree. Homeschooling is *not* for everyone. But my experience is
> that nearly all the homeschooled kids I have met fit the pattern I describe.
> ===============================
> Jon Mirsalis
"Homeschooling" and "Blackhawk"? I thought you folks were referring
to those great Blackhawk motion picture history lessons that were
included before the start of the films. One that got a loud laugh at
a MOMA screening was for FRAUDS & FRENZIES, a 1918 Vitagraph Larry
Semon two reeler featuring Stan Laurel. The titles recounted Semon's
career at some length, ending with mention of his early death in 1928,
followed by editorializing to the effect that "perhaps it's just as
well he died when he did"!
Ed Watz
Mile Films
parenting and there's many ways to reach that goal? We're really getting into
that territory where Mrs. Gleason disapproves of Mrs. Wilson because her kids
wear the wrong kind of shoes. It's right out of the fifties...
There are advantages to schools -- epecially when the parent is heavily
involved -- and there's advantages to home schooling by the obvious example of
Jon's children (though they keep finding Jon's underwear in strange places
around the house...) and others I know.
There is NO statistic or source in the world that's going to prove either
argument since no schools are alike, no parents are alike and no children are
alike. So there!
Now let's get on with arguments about who would win a DoN vs. SOB mud wrestling
death match and whether it should be shot on rotting nitrate (definitely) or
polyester to preserve it for eternity. Frederica, please start the
oddsmaking...
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
email: Mile...@aol.com
website: www.milestonefilms.com
Foto28
>career at some length, ending with mention of his early death in 1928,
>followed by editorializing to the effect that "perhaps it's just as
>well he died when he did"!
Those comments were surely written by someone who had seen his 1925 WIZARD OF
OZ!
Danny Burk
www.dannyburk.com
Frederica
Mile Films wrote:
> Now let's get on with arguments about who would win a DoN vs. SOB mud wrestling
> death match and whether it should be shot on rotting nitrate (definitely) or
> polyester to preserve it for eternity. Frederica, please start the
> oddsmaking...
(cough, splutter...) You mention my name and the word "polyester" in the same
sentence! I CLOSE THE IRON DOOR ON YOU!!
Frederica
No polyester. Never polyester. How would you say that in Latin? It would make
a great DoN motto.
John Aldrich
I couldn't agree with you more, Dennis.
It always dicey when what are basically opinions and anecdotes are
presented as facts. It doesn't matter what the topic is...silent
films or home schooling and the current generation's interest in
seeing silent films in the classroom (that *is* how this thread
started, isn't it??)
Whether one is categorically stating "homeshoolers outperform
every other group of kids" or "every film Harry Langdon made after he
fired Frank Capra is crap", it boils down to an opinion. It may be an
informed opinion, but it is an opinion, nonetheless. It was stated
that homeshooled kids have more patience than other kids. How does
one measure patience, I wonder?
Really, the only thing we can say for sure about home schooling at
this point (and the Time magazine articles Jon cites emphasized this)
is that there has been an explosion in home schooling in the last few
years, as it has transformed from basically a religous based activity
to more of a mainstream alternative to public education.
This explosion has happened so recently that the results just aren't
in yet as to the net effect on the education of the current generation
or on the educational system as we have historically known it.
It's a good thing that colleges like Stanford are actively recruiting
homeschooled kids and not just kids who score 1600 on their SAT's,
since there were only about 500 kids in the whole country that
achieved that score!
But, to get back to your post about a DoN -vs- SoB mud wrestling
match...perhaps we could make that a Cinecon event, and then make
people pay to NOT have to watch it!
--John Aldrich
Foto28
>make
>a great DoN motto.
>
How about "Odi polyestrum vulgus et arceo"? (I hate and avoid vulgar
polyester)
Danny Burk
www.dannyburk.com
Eric Grayson
>>No polyester. Never polyester. How would you say that in Latin? It
would
>>make
>>a great DoN motto.
>>
>
>How about "Odi polyestrum vulgus et arceo"? (I hate and avoid vulgar
>polyester)
>
that polyester is just as bad in the film world as it is in the clothing
world.
Eric
Frederica
Eric Grayson wrote:
Really? 'Splain.
Frederica
Frederica
Foto28 wrote:
> >No polyester. Never polyester. How would you say that in Latin? It would
> >make
> >a great DoN motto.
> >
>
> How about "Odi polyestrum vulgus et arceo"? (I hate and avoid vulgar
> polyester)
Hate and avoid is good, not sure about the vulgar. We DoN's are not frightened
by the vulgar. I suppose it would be "Odi polyestrum et arceo."
It works, it works.
Frederica
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
> >Bob Birchard wrote:
>
> MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> >> ignorant populace--unless, of course, school vouchers get voted in and then only the rich
> >> will get a decent education.
> >>
> >MK. What leads you ro suppose that giving to parents the power to
> >determine which institution shall receive the K-12 education subsidy
> >that the taxpayers spend on their children will produce the results
> >you predict? This has not been the case in countries which support
> >parent control.
>
> Of course, other countries don't even attempt to do what the U.S., and
> especially California attempt - educate EVERYONE to a high school
> diploma, regardless of income, gender, race, or language spoken.
> California has almost 200 different languages spoken by students at
> home, and yet tries to educate EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
>
> Comparing that to other countries is guaranteed to produce skewed
> results. Parents have the choice of where their children go to school,
> it's just that if they want somthing other than what is already paid
> for and ready to go, they have to pay for it, as they should. A public
> education is a right and a priviledge, a private education is a
> self-sposored alternative, not a right and not a priviledge.
>
more likely candidate for State operation than,m say, hairdressing or
agriculture? Why give bureaucrats control? Your points about other
countries are wide of the mark, also. Belgium, the Netherlands, and
Singapore very much -do- guarantee education to all. -And- they
support a parent's choice of school. -And- Singapore and Belgium are
multi-lingual. Finally, the argument about diversity of students seems
to support a wider range of options than the State monopoly will
offer. The way to demonstrate tolerance of diversity is to tolerate
diversity, seems to me.
>
MK. Last, terms like "right" and "privelege" really add nohing to the
discussion. The issue to me is which policy gives taxpayers get a
better deal: Parent choice and control or bureaucratic control.
Mile Films
same
sentence! I CLOSE THE IRON DOOR ON YOU!!
Frederica
No polyester. Never polyester. How would you say that in Latin? It would
make
a great DoN motto. >>
Ooooohhhhhhh! a GRUDGE celebrity mud wrestling death match!
However, one certainly does not WEAR polyester in decent society these days
(not since Travolta stopped dancing in Queens with the Bee Gees), one projects
it. That's the stuff film prints are made out of these days.
Without polyester, no film.
No film, no Keanu.
Imagine the horror!
Frederica
Mile Films wrote:
> Ooooohhhhhhh! a GRUDGE celebrity mud wrestling death match!
>
> However, one certainly does not WEAR polyester in decent society these days
> (not since Travolta stopped dancing in Queens with the Bee Gees), one projects
> it. That's the stuff film prints are made out of these days.
>
> Without polyester, no film.
> No film, no Keanu.
> Imagine the horror!
(???...no Keanu...?? !!!) Rethinking the polyester issue.
Frederica
William Hooper
<dfbfc9b9.0112...@posting.google.com>, Malcolm Kirkpatrick stated...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:malcolmkirkpatrick%40yahoo.com&hl=en&start=20&sa=N
Shoo, pitiably ego-damaged usenet kook!
Precode
What is it with you and this guy, anyway? He's the Troy Donahue of the '90s. Get
into Clooney, Campbell and Bakula, and then you'll be showing the taste one
commonly associates with a woman of your, uh, experience.
Mike S.
(who after suffering through THE MATRIX was ready to swallow ANY pill)
William Hooper
<mNyP7.50619$xS6....@www.newsranger.com>, Precode stated...
"The only thing an old man can do for me is show me which way a young man went!"
-- Moms Mabley
James Roots
> Whether one is categorically stating "homeshoolers outperform
> every other group of kids" or "every film Harry Langdon made after he
> fired Frank Capra is crap"
Is not!
Jim
Frederica
>>(???...no Keanu...?? !!!) Rethinking the polyester issue.
>>
>>Frederica
>>
>
>What is it with you and this guy, anyway? He's the Troy Donahue of the '90s.
(GASP!) What have you got against Troy Donahue? And as to Keanu...have you
looked at him lately??
Ya know, Keanu gets a lot of flack and I'll be the first to admit he's not the
most profound actor around. On the other hand, he's not the worst, either. I
also don't think he's as stupid as he'd like the press to think he is. The few
times I've seen him interviewed he's come across as very, very sharp and far
more honest than your average hunk du jour. I also notice that I don't know
very much about his private life--I don't even know if the guy is married. And
I've seen him do a pretty good job of deflecting intrusive questions regarding
his private life by simply playing dumb or sometimes playing the "maybe I'm
gay" game. I certainly don't ever want to see the man in Shakespeare again,
but he has turned in some respectable work. Hey, he called SPEED II right,
didn't he?
> Get
>into Clooney, Campbell and Bakula, and then you'll be showing the taste one
>commonly associates with a woman of your, uh, experience.
Campbell who? Bakula is a little banal. Like Clooney a lot. Also respect
Clooney a lot. Puts money where mouth is. Also has pet pig, big point in his
favor. Loses out on voice brownie points to cousin. Has fabulous aunt.
>Mike S.
>(who after suffering through THE MATRIX was ready to swallow ANY pill)
Yikes. What in the hell was that?...other than 2 hours out of my life I won't
get back.
Frederica
ChaneyFan
every other group of kids" or "every film Harry Langdon made after he
informed opinion, but it is an opinion, nonetheless.
I agree...except when you have a statistic like, "homeschooled kids scored 81
points better than public school kids on the SAT" which is right out of last
year's SAT annual figures. It isn't an opinion.
>>>It's a good thing that colleges like Stanford are actively recruiting
homeschooled kids and not just kids who score 1600 on their SAT's,
since there were only about 500 kids in the whole country that
achieved that score!
...and about 450 of the 500 apply to Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and UC-Berkeley!
My point is not to say that homeschooling is better than anything else. As
Dennis points out, good parenting counts for a lot more than schooling in any
case. My initial response was simply a reaction to the statement that
homeschooled kids were slower, less communicative, etc., which is clearly
flat-out wrong.
Mr. Moose
Kirkpatrick) wrote:
>MK. You didn't answer my question: What makes the education business a
>more likely candidate for State operation than,m say, hairdressing or
>agriculture? Why give bureaucrats control?
Wait a minute, is your beef with public schools or bureaucrats? :)
Seriously, the reason for state operation is because it is our
country's educational philosophy right now. If our country changes
it's philosophy and decides to go to a privately run system, then
great, but until then, it is our educational philosophy that the
schools are state run.
I also am concerned that if we were to have privately run schools, how
would we ensure that all children get educated? Which company would
decide to run schools for students in Compton, where they don't even
have fire extinguishers in the schools because the kids steal them?
(Actual fact.) Who would decide whether or not a child was capable of
learning, or capable of behaving? If a school decided that a child was
ADD, dyslexic, or a behavior problem, would they boot the kid out?
Worse, if a school decided that ADD=behavior problem, would they boot
the kid?
Your points about other
>countries are wide of the mark, also. Belgium, the Netherlands, and
>Singapore very much -do- guarantee education to all. -And- they
>support a parent's choice of school. -And- Singapore and Belgium are
>multi-lingual.
So, a couple countries guarantee education for all. A couple of OTHER
countries are multi lingual. But, can you find an example of a country
where a school system both guarantees an education for all, has over
100 languages (Sacramento City Unified School District, near me) and
has high standards that it actually meets?
>Finally, the argument about diversity of students seems
>to support a wider range of options than the State monopoly will
>offer. The way to demonstrate tolerance of diversity is to tolerate
>diversity, seems to me.
>>
Absolutely, but we aren't just concerned with tolerance, we are
concerned with success. And while I demonstrate tolerance, respect,
and, well, love for diversity in my classroom, that doesn't mean that
the job is easier - just that the students are more successful.
>MK. Last, terms like "right" and "privelege" really add nohing to the
>discussion. The issue to me is which policy gives taxpayers get a
>better deal: Parent choice and control or bureaucratic control.
I think that the taxpayer argument is not a good one. What we are
talking about here is education systems and beliefs. Education should
come at a reasonable, affordable price, but there should be a vision
behind how it is attained. I worry that people who preach vouchers
aren't concerned with how education can best be conducted, but with
how they can a) cut their taxes, and b) get some free bucks to send
their kid to private school away from all those "bad kids". I know
that not all vouchers people feel that way, but many people who preach
vouchers give me the feeling that they are not concerned with the
education of all children, but just their own children.
If our country decides to go to a voucher system as an extension of a
well-thought out educational policy, with high standards and clear
measurments of acheivment and learning and opportunites for all, then
great! I'll have a job either way, and children will get educated
either way. But to just vote in vouchers as a cure-all is, to me, very
short-sighted and counter-productive.
As far as home-schooling goes, IMO, good home-schooling is good, poor
home-schooling is poor.
Mark
Precode
>
>> Get into Clooney, Campbell and Bakula, and then you'll be showing the taste one
>>commonly associates with a woman of your, uh, experience.
>
>
>Campbell who? Bakula is a little banal. Like Clooney a lot. Also respect
>Clooney a lot. Puts money where mouth is. Also has pet pig, big point in his
>favor. Loses out on voice brownie points to cousin. Has fabulous aunt.
>
Why ol' Brisco County, Jr. hisself, Bruce Campbell, who would be a $20 million
player if somebody in this town would just set down his Evian, turn off his cel
phone, and remove his head from his ass.
Mike S.
(who doesn't find Bakula banal at all; are you even watching ENTERPRISE?)
William Hooper
<20011205205221...@mb-ba.aol.com>, ChaneyFan stated...
>>>>Whether one is categorically stating "homeshoolers outperform
>every other group of kids" or "every film Harry Langdon made after he
>fired Frank Capra is crap", it boils down to an opinion. It may be an
>informed opinion, but it is an opinion, nonetheless.
>
>I agree...except when you have a statistic like, "homeschooled kids scored 81
>points better than public school kids on the SAT" which is right out of last
>year's SAT annual figures. It isn't an opinion.
Are all high school & home schooled students required to take the SAT, are do
only students bound for college take the SAT?
Isn't there some provision for minimal learning for homeschooled children, & a
provision for returning them to public (private or parochial) school if they do
not meet some mark?
>My point is not to say that homeschooling is better than anything else. As
>Dennis points out, good parenting counts for a lot more than schooling in any
>case. My initial response was simply a reaction to the statement that
>homeschooled kids were slower, less communicative, etc., which is clearly
>flat-out wrong.
I'd have to disagree. My response would be that the truth doesn't lie somewhere
in between, but includes both extremes. Like almost everything, there's a
distribution of outcomes.
The statement I reported earlier was from a fairly casual conversation, & would
be as susceptible to observation & reporting error.
My dentist was reporting on his observations in an area with good schools &
higher grades to which many parents from the nearby "problem" district attempt
to flee. He also mentioned it in connection with the homeschooled children
being concentrated in families that he saw on the day he saw Medicaid patients.
The motivations of the parents in that area to remove children from schools have
been more to either increase outside money coming in (isn't it amazing how
selfish some parents are?), or for ideological, isolationist reasons. Like
rejection of the scientific method, evolution theory, or any other information
that may conflict with some important personal construction of theirs.
Your observations tend to be of homeschooling utilized by parents more highly
educated & at higher professional levels, likely motivated and able to provide a
curriculum individually tailored & more efficient in outcomes than in a setting
with larger number of students. Your personal application includes lots of
outside, stimulating activities for the children, these activities indicate a
family with *much* more disposable income & selections made possible by a person
with a more catholic view of the world than the check-magnets or ideologues who
are attempting to grow a baby in a bottle.
Both *are* examples of homeschooling. What's now becoming interesting is what's
the nature of that distribution of outcomes.
I'll go with the consensus that it depends on the parent. There are good & bad
teachers, good & bad parents, & good & bad teachers. Combine the role of
teacher & parent in an individual who may be not very good at both or one or the
other, & you'll be more likely to end up with a child who'd been better educated
by someone else. You're concentrating the likelihood that an outcome will come
out further to an extreme.
And I ask about the statistics, because the "A winner almost every time!" sets
any intelligent person's radar off as having less content than carny. Is this
finally what's going to reveal that all scholastic achievement is predicated on
learning, & not on biology? 100% of all homeschooled students scored 81 points
better on SAT's? As representative of *all* homeschooled students, despite the
variability of the teachers, students, & environments of homeschools & other
schools? This is more like 3 Card Monte than some probability-based application
like bridge or poker! There's no question that there are other cards in the
deck, the question is when will they come up? Do you think it's more like
college-bound students do better, excluding the ones removed from homeschooling
& returned to become college bound students from regular schools, & exclusive
also of some unreported but interesting percentage of homeschooled children
*not* college bound as opposed to the percentage college-bound from regular
schools?
I looked on the net briefly (as if it's really research) for homeschooling info,
& was deluged mainly with homeschooling advocacy material which was for the most
part of the isolationist, conspiracy theorist, & too often poorly-spelled
nature.
If I were to consult the Magic 8 Ball, which we all know is not scientific, I'll
bet that successful & horrible outcomes would be most likely predicted by family
income, & perhaps even more, the parent's motivation for homeschooling the
child.
Additionally, as we've seen that your children *are* highly socialized & have a
wide range of culturally-educational experience, the isolationists aren't doing
that. Although that may seem to be no skin off anyone's nose, I would like to
point out that with the disappearance of mass socializing activities (like going
to movies in groups of 750 or 2,000 & behaving or being thrown out), people
publicly behave in more selfish & hostile ways than before. As individuals
become more socially isolated & self-centered, they tend to prop up their
socializatin needs in a manner which doesn't threaten their beliefs, & socialize
by trying to contact & control others through various means. Okay, I'm
pussyfooting around the "cult" & "dangerous loner" terms here.
"Gets along well with others" is an important, indicative grade.
Frederica
>Why ol' Brisco County, Jr. hisself, Bruce Campbell, who would be a $20 million
>player if somebody in this town would just set down his Evian, turn off his
cel
>phone, and remove his head from his ass.
>
>Mike S.
>(who doesn't find Bakula banal at all; are you even watching ENTERPRISE?)
Oh. I never watched Brisco County, Jr. I'm watching ENTERPRISE even as we
speak, and still find Bakula banal. But perhaps he's just overshadowed by that
babe with the boobs. Excuse me, BOOBS. (Spandex, the logical fabric!) I must
say, I have high hopes for ENTERPRISE. It's been what, six shows now, and so
far they've resisted going back to 20th Century Earth, having a terrible
transporter accident where either a) two people are squished together or b) one
person is split apart into good/evil, and they've gotten rid of those 95%
faulty holodecks. Of course, we've got this huge ship with only six people on
it...
Frederica
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
> >MK. You didn't answer my question: What makes the education business a
> >agriculture? Why give bureaucrats control?
>
> Wait a minute, is your beef with public schools or bureaucrats? :)
>
>
> Seriously, the reason for state operation is because it is our
> country's educational philosophy right now. If our country changes
> it's philosophy and decides to go to a privately run system, then
> great, but until then, it is our educational philosophy that the
> schools are state run.
>
system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry. It subsists on assiduous
lobbying by public sector unions.
>
> I also am concerned that if we were to have privately run schools, how
> would we ensure that all children get educated? Which company would
> decide to run schools for students in Compton, where they don't even
> have fire extinguishers in the schools because the kids steal them?
> (Actual fact.) Who would decide whether or not a child was capable of
> learning, or capable of behaving? If a school decided that a child was
> ADD, dyslexic, or a behavior problem, would they boot the kid out?
> Worse, if a school decided that ADD=behavior problem, would they boot
> the kid?
>
not get high performance from the State school monopoly; the Singapore
5th--fifth--percentile score (TIMSS 8th grade math) is higher than the
US 50th--fiftieth--percentile score. Who decides? parents. The
available evidence indicates thar they will do a better job than
bureaucrats.
>
> Your points about other
> >countries are wide of the mark, also. Belgium, the Netherlands, and
> >Singapore very much -do- guarantee education to all. -And- they
> >support a parent's choice of school. -And- Singapore and Belgium are
> >multi-lingual.
>
> So, a couple countries guarantee education for all. A couple of OTHER
> countries are multi lingual. But, can you find an example of a country
> where a school system both guarantees an education for all, has over
> 100 languages (Sacramento City Unified School District, near me) and
> has high standards that it actually meets?
>
>
> >Finally, the argument about diversity of students seems
> >to support a wider range of options than the State monopoly will
> >offer. The way to demonstrate tolerance of diversity is to tolerate
> >diversity, seems to me.
>
> Absolutely, but we aren't just concerned with tolerance, we are
> concerned with success. And while I demonstrate tolerance, respect,
> and, well, love for diversity in my classroom, that doesn't mean that
> the job is easier - just that the students are more successful.
>
> >MK. Last, terms like "right" and "privelege" really add nohing to the
> >discussion. The issue to me is which policy gives taxpayers get a
> >better deal: Parent choice and control or bureaucratic control.
>
> I think that the taxpayer argument is not a good one. What we are
> talking about here is education systems and beliefs. Education should
> come at a reasonable, affordable price, but there should be a vision
> behind how it is attained. I worry that people who preach vouchers
> aren't concerned with how education can best be conducted, but with
> how they can a) cut their taxes, and b) get some free bucks to send
> their kid to private school away from all those "bad kids". I know
> that not all vouchers people feel that way, but many people who preach
> vouchers give me the feeling that they are not concerned with the
> education of all children, but just their own children.
>
really wretched system. Juvenile arrests fall in summer, in Hawaii.
Juvenile hospitalizations fall on summer. This system is lethal.
>
> If our country decides to go to a voucher system as an extension of a
> well-thought out educational policy, with high standards and clear
> measurments of acheivment and learning and opportunites for all, then
> great! I'll have a job either way, and children will get educated
> either way. But to just vote in vouchers as a cure-all is, to me, very
> short-sighted and counter-productive.
>
and Moe.
>
> As far as home-schooling goes, IMO, good home-schooling is good, poor
> home-schooling is poor.
>
with no college education outperform the students of the
college-trained teachers in the Alaska school system.
>
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
> >MK. You didn't answer my question: What makes the education business a
> >agriculture? Why give bureaucrats control?
>
> Wait a minute, is your beef with public schools or bureaucrats? :)
>
>
> country's educational philosophy right now. If our country changes
> it's philosophy and decides to go to a privately run system, then
> great, but until then, it is our educational philosophy that the
> schools are state run.
>
system originated in anti-Catholic bigotry. It subsists on assiduous
lobbying by public sector unions.
>
> would we ensure that all children get educated? Which company would
> decide to run schools for students in Compton, where they don't even
> have fire extinguishers in the schools because the kids steal them?
> (Actual fact.) Who would decide whether or not a child was capable of
> learning, or capable of behaving? If a school decided that a child was
> ADD, dyslexic, or a behavior problem, would they boot the kid out?
> Worse, if a school decided that ADD=behavior problem, would they boot
> the kid?
>
not get high performance from the State school monopoly; the Singapore
5th--fifth--percentile score (TIMSS 8th grade math) is higher than the
US 50th--fiftieth--percentile score. Who decides? parents. The
available evidence indicates thar they will do a better job than
bureaucrats.
>
> >countries are wide of the mark, also. Belgium, the Netherlands, and
> >Singapore very much -do- guarantee education to all. -And- they
> >support a parent's choice of school. -And- Singapore and Belgium are
> >multi-lingual.
>
> So, a couple countries guarantee education for all. A couple of OTHER
> countries are multi lingual. But, can you find an example of a country
> where a school system both guarantees an education for all, has over
> 100 languages (Sacramento City Unified School District, near me) and
> has high standards that it actually meets?
>
>
> >to support a wider range of options than the State monopoly will
> >offer. The way to demonstrate tolerance of diversity is to tolerate
> >diversity, seems to me.
>
> Absolutely, but we aren't just concerned with tolerance, we are
> concerned with success. And while I demonstrate tolerance, respect,
> and, well, love for diversity in my classroom, that doesn't mean that
> the job is easier - just that the students are more successful.
>
> >MK. Last, terms like "right" and "privelege" really add nohing to the
> >discussion. The issue to me is which policy gives taxpayers get a
> >better deal: Parent choice and control or bureaucratic control.
>
> I think that the taxpayer argument is not a good one. What we are
> talking about here is education systems and beliefs. Education should
> come at a reasonable, affordable price, but there should be a vision
> behind how it is attained. I worry that people who preach vouchers
> aren't concerned with how education can best be conducted, but with
> how they can a) cut their taxes, and b) get some free bucks to send
> their kid to private school away from all those "bad kids". I know
> that not all vouchers people feel that way, but many people who preach
> vouchers give me the feeling that they are not concerned with the
> education of all children, but just their own children.
>
really wretched system. Juvenile arrests fall in summer, in Hawaii.
Juvenile hospitalizations fall on summer. This system is lethal.
>
> well-thought out educational policy, with high standards and clear
> measurments of acheivment and learning and opportunites for all, then
> great! I'll have a job either way, and children will get educated
> either way. But to just vote in vouchers as a cure-all is, to me, very
> short-sighted and counter-productive.
>
and Moe.
>
> home-schooling is poor.
>
Eric Grayson
but modern film is made of polyester, or mylar.
I am one of the people who HATES mylar film. It has a tendency to scratch
easily, and it sheds weird white powder in your projector.
Like the leisure suits of old, it won't tear either. So if you have a
problem with the film running, it will literally destroy your projector
rather than breaking.
Eric
Frederica
Eric Grayson wrote:
> Frederica, you'll have to go back in the archives a bit to find more info,
> but modern film is made of polyester, or mylar.
AHA!! Mylar!! For a while they used to make plastic book protector jackets
out of mylar, actually I think some manufacturers may still make them out of
mylar. They cause the book cover to yellow eventually, so I try to avoid
'em. Is all film made of mylar?
Is the film they use for television the same as the film they use for
movies? How about when they film a live performance, such as an opera?
Frederica
Eric Grayson
<mailto:missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote:
>Is the film they use for television the same as the film they use for
>movies? How about when they film a live performance, such as an opera?
Well, this gets a bit technical.
Movies don't ALL use Mylar. Some still use old triacetate film (even new
films) and the large majority of negatives for movies still use triacetate,
because mylar doesn't take splicing cement.
Most of the film you see on television is never printed to film the way
you'd see it in movies. It's transferred straight to video from the
original camera negative and then edited on video (since the late 70s,
early 80s).
So on TV you're seeing acetate, not mylar, for the most part.
Now, remember that a lot of things that are called "filmed" are actually
shot live on videotape. An opera would almost certainly be shot on
videotape, since it's an expensive proposition to put it on film.
About half of all sitcoms are shot on film, most 1-hr shows are shot on
film, and game shows or stuff like that goes out from video. Major
exceptions would be the last season of Diagnosis Murder and that classic
show, Earth: Final Conflict. I think ER was thinking about going video but
I don't know that they have.