criterionforum.org

More on the matter from Jost.

I say this as a huge fan of the man's work, but why is the most surprising thing about all of this the fact that Carney has a wife?

good wife, too, refusing the subpoena!

are Lorraine Bracco and Ray Liotta available to star as the Carneys in some reenactment scenes?

Foam wrote:More on the matter from Jost.

I say this as a huge fan of the man's work, but why is the most surprising thing about all of this the fact that Carney has a wife?

I'm impatient, can someone summarize.

denti alligator wrote:

Foam wrote:More on the matter from Jost:
https://cinemaelectronica.wordpress.com ... lations-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I say this as a huge fan of the man's work, but why is the most surprising thing about all of this the fact that Carney has a wife?

I'm impatient, can someone summarize.

Ray Carney resembles and dresses like Orville Redenbacher; hence, Foam was confused by Carney's ability to attract and hold the interest of a female of his species.

I meant more along the lines of his fanatically uncompromising and highly individualistic nature. But I guess that too.

Mrs. Carney must have suffered a lot for her videostore preferences back in the 90s- a twenty minute lecture for twenty seconds reading the back of the box for Ghost..

I'm betting Mrs. Carney is a lot like Mrs. Bates.

I'm a lawyer, but don't dabble in such suits.
My general impression is that it sounds like a real bad idea to drop the lawsuit.
Hard to believe that he can't scrounge up $25K for legal fees to get back his life's work.
Or even $15K to buy off Carney (Carney was asking around $19K so would probably go down).

Apparently the original trial date was in 2014 (!), but they got it moved forward to Dec 2012,
If it was postponed back into 2013 sometime, the lawsuit could percolate in the background, cost little to nothing for another 6+ months, while negotiations/discussions could continue.
Dropping the lawsuit seems like he loses a lot of leverage, rights, and flexibility.
Kinda sad.

Before hiring a lawyer, I probably would have met and discussed this issue with Carney's university, with whom he apparently is already on poor terms. Or looked for friends or intermediaries who could intervene.. There are ways of applying pressure without lawyering up, which necessitates expenses and formalities.

Lemmy Caution wrote:There are ways of applying pressure without lawyering up, which necessitates expenses and formalities.

Jon Jost is doing a fine demonstration of this already. And his blog is currently the third Google search result for "Ray Carney", after Carney's own blog and his Wikipedia bio.

(Wikipedia mentions l'affaire Rappaport, but only in a single sentence - but the reference link is to David Ehrenstein's blog, which reproduces Rappaport's original open letter.)

Well, Jost's blog is the 5th highest link to Carney on google now.
I added a brief bit on Rappaport's wiki page, mentioning the dispute linking to Jost's blog.
Should do the same for Carney's wiki page, or maybe someone better informed can take the initiative.

I really think pressure on Carney's university would be effective. And any unethical behavior on Carney's part in this matter could threaten his university position.

I was wondering if any of those crowdfunding sites might work to help Rappaport raise money to get back his life work. Either to buy off Carney or proceed with the legal case (if still possible). I also suspect that if Rappaport won in court he could get legal costs reimbursed from Carney. But it depends on the specific details whether he would win or be able to recover costs. A lawyer/ law firm might be willing to handle this matter pro bono with the prospects of getting paid IF they win and legal costs are awarded. I'll try to see if I know any lawyers who might be willing to look into this matter ...

Actually, a more practical use of crowdfunding might be to enable him to create HD masters of his work. From what I understand, the video masters in Carney's possession aren't completely irreplaceable - the problem is that they're expensive to replace.

Jost has started a petition against Carney:
https://www.change.org/petitions/ray-ca ... rt-s-films" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a petition signer wrote:Carney's behavior is inexcusable, and he's proof that the tenure system in American post-secondary institutions is a pox on learning.

That's fair enough, right? The legitimacy of the entire institution of tenure is riding on the behavior of one professor. Okay.

^Agree. And it's a bummer when well-meaning folks show up to the anti-war rally with "Free Leonard Peltier" or "Legalize Marijuana" signs, if I may draw a comparison. Obscures the issue, diffuses the energy, blunts the effect. I wish people would stay on-point in matters like these. This has nothing directly to do with Ray Carney's tenure.

How is fraudulently putting a lien on someone's artistic property connected directly to the tenure system in the United States?

EDIT: I should add that I am a musician, and I had an ex-collaborator refuse to return my 2-inch masters, claiming--with no basis in fact, either written, spoken, or imagined--that I had agreed to pay him money for studio time. He came close to admitting to me that he was lying and simply doing this on a "business basis"--in other words, he knew, in spite of there being no contract, that enough time had elapsed with the tapes in his possession, he could possibly win in court and yet bank on the fact that my broke ass would never take him to court. He had even been advised by a friend in the music industry to do this! Fortunately, the only advantage I lose is being able to do a new mix on reel-to-reel machinery; I can still reproduce the recording. But I honestly believe that this guy has deluded himself into thinking that this is appropriate behavior--"Hey, man, nothing personal, it's just business," as he said to me once. I think this is extremely common practice in this country, at least.

I think my story, which has nothing to do with academia, is more directly applicable to Rappaport's situation, because it invokes issues of property rights, and the growing chasm between what is considered "legal" and what is considered, by most compassionate people's accounts, simple human decency. In my mind, tenure does not enable this behavior, except perhaps indirectly, assuming that Rappaport trusted Carney more given the latter's academic status. Perhaps it influenced him to relinquish his work to Carney, but it seemed more like the two were, before anything else, simply good friends, and that his tenured status had very little to do with Rappaport's decision. I obviously know neither one of them, but I thought I would respond more fully to your contention that the tenure system is what is directly at fault here. I think blaming tenure in the U.S., as the commenter did on the web petition, muddles the issue. Denying tenure to professors would obviously not solve the problem.

David, I think we're discussing this at cross purposes. You are considering consequences, not causes. Certainly, he should lose his tenure, his job, etc. But the object here--first and foremost--is for Rappaport to have his work returned. And, ideally, to have this kind of behavior discouraged in the justice system, no matter what position the thief holds, be it beggar, executive, tenured professor, soda jerk.

As for academia, who would ever look to a university for some kind of moral precedent? I wouldn't say, having been through a doctoral program, that this has been a moment of disillusionment for me. Professors are no better, and often worse, than the rest of us.

I won't!

Carney responds to The Rappaport Situation, casts himself as a victim of blackmail, extortion, "cyberbullying."

Jeff wrote:Carney responds to The Rappaport Situation, casts himself as a victim of blackmail, extortion, "cyberbullying."

Whatever the actual truth value of that is, I have no doubt that Ray Carney believes every single word of it. I don't think he's uttered a single conscious untruth.

Man oh man, I had a hard time even getting past the first paragraph of that piece.

That a) he (unadvisedly) publicizes his legal squabbles on a website purporting to expose the oppressive bureaucracies at B.U. and b) he consequently associates Rappaport with those institutional grievances is disingenuous and galling.

I'm find his claim that he has ironclad proof that the reels were gifted, were worthless in the first place, and were otherwise going to be trashed pretty dubious- like, why would he bother writing a million word screed about how right he is, rather than just posting the relevant documentation and making Rapaport look like an idiot?

"I appreciate Carney’s concern in trying to exhonorate [sic] himself, even though I couldn’t make it through the letter, despite the fact that it’s mostly about me." Mark Rappaport responds. Also, Jon Jost chimes in, Ben Safdie sticks up for Carney, and blah blah blah, and why is this playing out on Mubi? Good grief.

None of this is funny, I know, but I am greatly amused by the suggestion someone makes there of a "moderated Mubi trial."

Mubi is hereby found guilty.