ABC news

<p>I received an email from a well known ABC newsperson. They'd like to interview me about my found films.<br>

I believe I'll refuse for the following reasons.</p>

<p>1. I like the little world that I operate in.<br>

2. The massive response would shut down my website.<br>

3. I'm already buried in orphaned film.<br>

4. I look like hell on television</p>

<p>What are your thoughts ?</p>

<p>I can be your stand-in ? <br>

Sure beats fakin' your own death, Gene, and living out your 15-minutes of fame behind a black curtain.</p>

<p>I think you should do it Gene. I know everyone here would love to see you get the recognition you deserve. But, I also completely understand the desire to remain more or less "under the radar".</p>

<p>As far as #4 goes, that's what makeup people are for. They show Nancy Pelosi on TV, right? Wait...that may not be a very good example.</p>

<p>Makeup on me would require the use of a trowel.</p>

<p>I fully understand, Gene. I have had my experiences with journalists and since then I rank them even below politicians (trustworthiness-wise). Stay the hell away from that lot!</p>

<p>I think you should do it, Gene. If only to spread the Gospel of Film and Classic Cameras. Your comments will most likely be edited beyond recognition but they may just inspire a few youngsters to a new world...</p>

<p>"Who would you play you for the movie rights?"<br>

Sandra Bullock. But she'd have to sleep with me to get the part.</p>

<p>Sandra Bullock??? I think you could have done much better. BTW, does your wife read our threads?</p>

<p>I think you should do it, Gene, if only for the people who wouldn't otherwise get to see these wonderful stories.</p>

 

<p>On the last one, they would doll you up.</p>

<p>Gene - is there a way they can interview you without giving away your full identity?</p>

<p>Alos, whether you decide to do this or not, this would be a great story for the NYT's Lens blog. Of course, given how timely they, they'll probably run the story in 2020.</p>

<p>Gene if it were the DISCOVERY channel yes withour reservation./<br>

I think the pinheads at the big networks<br>

will find a way t0 mock you<br>

if it were instamatic or disk film days, they<br>

would scoff at anything except that "saying everone knows instamatic is the wave of the future and this guy messes around with that old roll film stuff"<br>

today it would be the same except these pinheads<br>

will use digital as a basis of comparison.<br>

Knowing the thought parterns of Journalists,.<br>

I am sure that they would say would niot be flattering to you.</p>

<p>I LIKE the Herko or stink o flex stories<br>

You could even do a found film thread on a pink 127 imperial<br>

and we here at PN would say " oh wow"<br>

Maybe if you put a little non camera PORN in it abc would like it better.<br>

BUT THAT would have nothing to do with cameras.</p>

<p>I would say do it-- but only for the discovery channel or the history channel.<br>

that might have some meaning. the networks are way too superficial.<br>

anything more complicated than a paper clip is " beyond their understanding"<br>

Politicians? I think they are slightly smarter than Journalists.</p>

<p>Do it! It represents an unparalleled opportunity to reach so many. Isn't that sharing of the uniqueness, mystery and tenderness of found film, as so eloquently expressed in your recent "Mom's Film" posts, the reason for having a website. Opportunity is knocking. Will you answer?<br>

Besides what better way to position yourself for a decent book deal later on. A TV report or website is temporary and fleeting. A real book, without having major museums preserving your work, is more or less permanent even if out of print. Come to think of it, you may actually get some curatorial interest as well from such exposure. Do it and squeeze every drop of free PR from it you can. </p>

<p>I think if you could get across the point you make in the last of Mom's pictures about great photos not necessarily being of technical perfection then you should do it. If you think the journalists would follow some other agenda then, sure, keep your head down.</p>

<p>A good point was made about the NY Times Lens blog; I think if Errol Morris was interested it would undoubtedly be a Good Thing.</p>

 

<p>Very cool, Gene. Do what you think best</p>

 

<p>I definitely understand your reservations about doing the interview, however your work (both with your film and insightful commentary) is funny, sentimental, nostalgic, and has the potential to touch any number of people in many different ways. I for one would love to see it shared. And if it makes someone pull their film camera out of the closet (or buy their first one) all the better.</p>

 

 

<p>Do what you think best.</p>

<p>But if you're asking my opinion, I'd say give the interview. I don't think you'll be buried in responses. I think you'll connect emotionally to a bunch of viewers on the retro / nostalgia level, but that darned few will have film of their own for you to process.</p>

<p>How is your website access metered? I know a guy who put a great video he'd shot on his website (a tugboat hitting a low bridge at flood, capsizing, and righting itself after passing under the bridge, the pilot still in the wheelhouse), and it went viral.... The flood of hits opened him up to a HUGE fee from his ISP.</p>

<p>So again, I'd say go for it. Spread the gospel of what you're doing. Possibly get millions of people teary-eyed about their past and the emotional connection photos have given them. But do so with your eyes open.</p>

<p>I also wouldn't assume they want to make you a fool. They want a nice, feel-good story to start people's day off right.</p>

<p>It's also gosh-darned amazing in this day of digital media not lasting 10 years, and you're like an archeologist, retrieving latent images decades old.</p>

<p>Don't worry about the makeup. They have plenty. And they probably are expecting somebody with character and experience.</p>

<p>It wouldn't surprise me if your exposure went hand-in-hand with the Vivian Maier press, and between the two eloquently extolled the virtue and relative longevity of film.</p>

<p>But.... If it were Jerry Springer, I'd advise you differently.</p>

<p>Gene,<br>

I would think of two consequences of a national TV interview. First people may send you tons of stuff from 40-50-60-ies. Second, a "very concern" citizen may launch a litigation of some sort of copyright or privacy violation you have no idea about. </p>

<p>Gene, anything that can further promote the interest in old film is a good thing, I think. You could do a telephone interview, not in person, right?</p>

<p>Gene, now that Kozma has brought up potential copyright issues as a downside, I've just realized a possible up-side:</p>

<p>Somebody identifies people in your Found Film series, and the photos are reunited with people who never knew they existed. Can you imagine how you'd feel if suddenly a new batch of photos of your grandmother, 50 years in the past, surfaced?</p>

<p>Absolutely go for it, Gene. You a unique part of Americana. Your appeal is not just the photos you recover, but also your running commentary on them.</p>

<p>If I may put on my Politico persona for a moment, Howard, Nancy Pelosi is an attractive woman that has been the most effective Speaker in decades, and has raised a wonderful family. Far more appealing than caribou bimbo and her dysfunctional family, or batchit crazy michele.</p>

<p>"Sandra Bullock??? I think you could have done much better. BTW, does your wife read our threads?"</p>

<p>I have a Bullock fetish. My wife does not read the forum but she knows about the Bullock thing. She thinks it's laughable. It is, of course.</p>

<p>Gene,</p>

<p>I'd say do it. But I would talk with a lawyer regarding copyright before doing so. While I've always liked your project, I've also wondered about the copyright issue in the past.</p>

<p>Gene:<br>

If it were me in your position, I would have reservations, too. There are many good things about having the exposure, and part of my concern would be the "angle' and the "spin" that any reportage would offer. I watched the Vivian Maier video that was done by a Chicago station, and thought it was done very well. So, like any newsworthy event, it will be in how they approach it. <br>

A good fallout would be that maybe families would take better care of their photographic treasures and realize that hard drives filled with images do not have much of a legacy value. The physical nature of a negative or a slide has a visual immediacy that digital images do not. However, once an image has been scanned and put up on the web -- the impact and reach of an images becomes both personal (as in Mom's pics) and universal. <br>

You are not in this to make money, and one of the things you could stress is that there are commercial labs that will process old films, and that you are not the only person in the country that knows how to do this. However, nobody else has your sense of humor and insight regarding the images that you post up on the web :).<br>

I would think that a good outcome for something like this could be some organization like the George Eastman House to offer a home for orphan images. But who knows where such a spot could lead? Fear not!</p>

<p>Hard call, Gene. I suspect there are a few pitfalls that might outweigh the benefits of promoting film, in terms both the personal exposure sense and possibly with some obscure legal issues. One has to ask yourself, "What's in it for me?", and I'm personally not that keen on Sandra Bullock. A book, well researched and cannily produced, seems a great medium for your work and talent, rather than the vacuous medium of commercial TV. Natalie Portman's rather nice, though...</p>