UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 2

Re: Another Condition For Documentary Participation

From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:29:15 -0400
Archived: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:07:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Another Condition For Documentary Participation

>From: Carol Rainey <csrainey1.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:40:11 -0400
>Subject: Re: Another Condition For Documentary Participation


>But I'm sorry to say that broadcast and cable network television
>is simply _not_ a democratic medium. From my earliest day in
>guerilla TV in the early 80s, using funky b/w portable video
>cameras and trying, mostly in vain, to get PBS to air our indie
>productions, I learned that whoever owns the means of
>distribution and has the considerable funds needed to produce a
>slick broadcast quality show - that's who has the power over how
>a topic gets presented.

Well, TV may not be a democratic medium, but that doesn't mean
that systematic efforts to get the truth out aren't worth the
effort. The scale of the importance of the UFO issue is as grand
as the galaxies the craft almost certainly come from.

This is one issue worth "going to the mat" for.

>If programmers don't want to air the "homemade" program
>submitted to them, shot and edited on low-end technology (which
>you suggest can be done), the engineer at the station can simply
>say your video doesn't meet the federally mandated broadcast
>specifications for resolution, lines, audio quality, etc.

These days quality had be had close to home. It would be step
one for the researchers considering an independent production,
perhaps with the help of people on this list who are qualified,
to find out what standards need to be met. I don't see that as
impossible to do.

>As other responders to this thread have suggested, broadcast TV
>producers virtually _never_ give away the final cut to anyone,
>even Carl Sagan - unless it was his show by virtue of his
>prestige and he cut the deal that way. I've dealt with NOVA a
>great deal and I can't name a single UFO researcher who could cut
>a deal with that show to be seen in a favorable way.

There's always a first time, and I am saying that repeated,
consistent efforts to approach that goal is worth pursuing. If I
were a UFO researcher I would certainly be doing just that.

>There is hope, though, as you and others point out, that the
>reign of the broadcast regime is over and the internet has the
>possibility to offer makers of media about UFOs another
>distribution outlet. We are already seeing some lower-tech,
>shorter films about UFOs available on You Tube and other sites.

I would imagine the combined video production expertise on this
List is more than enough to create a first class documentary. It
might take more time than a production company with an assured
budget, but it can be done.

>Here's what's never going to change,though: making a watchable,
>compelling documentary with a story arc that pulls the viewer
>forward, tells the story clearly and convincingly, one that is
>technically sound enough to not turn off the viewer - to do that
>requires a skill set and a mastery of a complex technology that
>generally takes an individual years to acquire.

Again - that mastery, from the posts I've read over the years -
exists right here among List members. Maybe you could do some
pro bono work too?

>I hope that within the next year my own documentary on the UFO
>abduction phenomenon, shot with Budd Hopkins and many other
>researchers over a decade and around the world, will be available
>to the UFO community and to academicians, scientists, and the
>general public alike. It will be my take on a complex, subtle
>human experience, as experienced by an insider who did her
>home-work. I'm making it myself, with my own money, on my own
>time, on my own equipment. Nobody but me can dictate what's said
>or how it's said.

Great. Please avoid dark backgrounds, weird lighting, weird
music, OK?

Remember that educational series hosted by James Burke,
Connections? Like that. Nice, daytime, sensible settings. No

>And you know what? There are still going to be people who
>complain and carry-on, because what they saw wasn't their _own_
>vision of the thing.

That isn't the subject of my suggestions. Different topic.

> And, by the way, I really like limbo lighting, that dark
>background you hate. It's nothing more than a stylistic
>indication that a subject should be taken quite seriously.

_No_ Carol, you are _deeply_ mistaken there! It switches the
environment from one of relating facts to one of
'entertainment', kinky, sexy, weirdness. Exactly the _opposite_
of taking it "seriously"!

I suggest that because _you_ like it is _not_ a reason to use
it. Do what's best for bringing the field of ufology into the
mainstream, and don't indulge your personal liking!

I'm telling you that I am one person who _hates_ limbo lighting
when trying to convey facts. Any other Listers with me on that?

Eleanor White

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com