Friday Links

As many of my readers will likely know, David Hudson, one of the most prolific, attentive, and eclectic film bloggers out there is discontinuing his “Daily” blog, an indispensable resource where David would aggregate, and often comment on, the day’s most significant film links.  In doing research for my book and tracking resources for the classroom, David’s work, both at his old GreenCine blog and more recently at the IFC website, has been incredibly valuable.  David promises, in his final entry, to return soon to the film blogosphere, and although I’m enthusiastic about this new direction, I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that his work on the “Daily” will be missed.  Here are a few other links:

  • Chris Anderson, author of Free: The Future of a Radical Price, responds to Malcolm Gladwell’s critical review of his new book.  I’m still generally convinced by many of Gladwell’s reservations about Anderson’s argument (at least as it is articulated in Anderson’s Wired article from a few months ago).
  • Lance Weiler has a PowerPoint presentation on the film resource site, The Workbook Project, where he offers an overview of how filmmakers and others can use social media to “extend a story and generate a conversation around their work.”  The slideshow focuses on such case studies as Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the Brave New Films website, and the expanded online world of the TV show Mad Men (which included characters from the show posting on Twitter).  Lance also has some useful numbers on the demographics of users of social media.
  • The Film Blog Calendar looks like a valuable resource, one that will hopefully help to aggregate special events, such as blogathons and themed weeks, making them more accessible for film blog readers and writers.
  • Adrian Martin has an intriguing editorial/rant about the popular bias built into (the Internet Movie Database, for those who dont know it).  Martin acknowledges that, for better or for worse, IMDB is probably going to be a major resource for film scholars, consumers, and cinephiles for some time before pointing out its maddening gaps, especially when it comes to independent, non-U.S., and avant-garde films.  This popular bias is, no doubt, informed by the fact that the site blurs the line between being a source of information and a location for the intense promotion of Hollywood films.  I do think that IMDB users can alleviate these biases to some extent by contributing to the site (whether by posting reviews or by aletring the site’s editors to omissions or errors), but Martin’s read is a good one.

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting