The Basic Unit of Communication: The Message
In the online environment, the basic unit of communication is the message. Examination of message construction, tone, and content can afford clues to the personality characteristics of individual senders. Although each message is different, LISTSERV discussions tend to occur around common themes and similar types of interactions.
Logistics of the LISTSERV; Message Structure
I decided to join the Cinema-L list in the early 1990s at the urging of a friend. [11] Within minutes of subscribing, I began receiving messages from other cinema enthusiasts scattered around the globe. Each of those messages contains information both logistical and personal about its origin. On most electronic mail systems, any received message contains, at the top of it, an extensive list of routing information that includes a "from" line. [12] All subscribers at the time they sign onto the list have the option of subscribing under an assumed name, or concealing or revealing their identity. If a list member's identity is concealed, anyone requesting a membership roster from the LISTSERV will not find the "concealed" member's name or e-mail address anywhere on the resulting list. A message from a "concealed" member contains no information on the "from" line of the message.
The next part of the message is the salutation. Many messages contain greetings, wherein a list member addresses his or her comments to the list in general, or to another list member's previous posting. [13] Even though a message may be addressed to one poster's previous comments, however, it is always done so with the understanding that the conversation is "public": anyone else on the list may jump into the discussion at any time. Some messages contain no salutation, and are therefore (by default) addressed to ALL members of Cinema-L.
Following the header and salutation is the body of the message. This section is usually short, as many messages to Cinema-L consist of fewer than 10 lines. Since it is difficult for many senders to edit in "electronic mail" mode (e-mail was designed for quick communication; its word processing capabilities, however, often leave much to be desired), many messages contain spelling and/or grammar errors, which are usually simply ignored by other posters. Abbreviations are often used: for example, "BTW" means "by the way," and "IMHO" means "in my humble opinion." The use of these kinds of abbreviations, common to the list community, not only serve the pragmatic function of allowing for quicker e-mail message composition but also give one a sense of being a part of a club where members use special languages to communicate with one another. Asterisks are sometimes used around a word to substitute for quotation marks, underlining, or bolding, or to emphasize a word by setting it off; and underscoring is sometimes placed around a word rather than underneath it because of the limitations of most e-mail punctuation and edit systems. For example, a poster may say "I can't say that I really *liked* _The Rapture_, but I thought it was well done."
And, finally, there is the poster's signature. A few posters conclude their messages with a closing of some type. The closing may be something simple such as "Cheerfully" or "Crankily," and is usually a short descriptor of the poster's mood or state of mind, or the activity in which he or she is engaged at the time of the posting (I might sign a post, for example, "Anita, who is up to her eyeballs in paperwork today, and who is trying hard not to become involved in the latest flame war"). The poster can then choose to sign or not to sign a real name at the bottom of the message. Most messages conclude with the poster's name (usually just the first name, sometimes first and last names, sometimes initials, seldom no signature at all). There are variations on this theme, however; some posters develop their own intricate "signature" drawings (such as a picture of a face or a line drawing of a bicycle generated using ASCII art). Still others include information related to a list member's affiliations--the university the poster is from, or his or her title, or a return e-mail address, or perhaps just a nom de plume such as "Sharon Stone's Slave," or even a pithy or amusing quote (usually from a movie, as this is a cinema list; for example: "If you build it, he will come," from Field of Dreams).
Every choice related to the style and content of each message contributes to the audience's perception of the personal characteristics of its poster. For instance, someone who consistently begins all of his messages "Friends at Cinema-L" and concludes his messages "Cheerfully, Bill" will probably be perceived as being a friendly, happy person. Someone who begins her messages with no salutation and concludes her messages "JoAnne Reed, Assistant Vice President of Libraries" may convey a more formal aura. Of course in the postmodern world of electronic communication (one of the most crucial aspects of which is lack of face-to-face interaction) Bill, for example, may not be Bill (or even a male) at all; he may be in actuality somebody's cranky, 83-year-old granny from Ohio who has a gift for impressions management and an offbeat sense of humor.
Common Ground: "The Discussion of all Forms of Cinema"
The list's formal description, which follows, encapsulates the list's dual underlying philosophy--of the ability of both movies and electronic communication to bring people together on common ground for the purpose of generating discourse informed by a diversity of viewpoints:
This list is dedicated to the discussion of all forms of cinema, in all its aspects. Its founding is based on the understanding that most people who watch and enjoy movies do so from a variety of viewpoints, and that a general, unlimited forum is desirable for both the integration and expansion of cinematical ideas, techniques, and understanding. Therefore, all topics having to do with cinema are welcome, including but not limited to: composition, performance, watching; research, critique, inquiry, advocacy; and anything else you can think of. If a topic is running that you have something to say about, or to question, jump in. If you have something entirely different in mind, start up another thread. Movies are universal. With the advent of electronic communications, so are we.
The "discussion of all forms of cinema" that takes place every day on Cinema-L is a complex, ever-evolving, and many-stranded process wherein list members interact with the topic of film (and actors, and directors, and genres, etc.) and with one another on a very personal level. The tone of messages is generally fairly informal and chatty, and levels of film commentary and analysis range from the concrete to the abstract, from the anecdotal to the analytical. Popular release films tend to be discussed more widely than art house films; and American films generally get more attention than international films. On a typical day, for example, Rich may note that Rebecca de Mornay, a favorite female star of his, looked especially appealing in her latest film release. Liza may send a message containing snippets from a recent article in an entertainment magazine or film journal, and may then comment on the various levels of deconstruction that can be applied to a film that is currently being discussed on the list. The language of analysis is as varied as the subject matter, and ranges from the amateur to the academic.
Through posting messages to the list, contributors participate in a series of positionings that on occasion align them with other posters and at other times throw them into opposition with other posters. Rich may post opinions, over the course of several weeks, indicating that he thinks Katharine Hepburn is the greatest actress who ever lived; that Oliver Stone is a lousy historian who nevertheless creates an interesting fable; that Tom Cruise is overrated as an actor; that A River Runs Through It was the best movie he saw last year; and that although Rebecca de Mornay always looks lovely in whatever role she plays, she would turn in better performances if only she had the sense to choose meatier roles.
This series of evaluative positionings will make Rich the darling of the Katharine Hepburn and the Rebecca de Mornay fan club sets, annoy the Tom Cruise fans, support another list member's opinion that Robert Redford is turning out to be a better director than he ever was an actor, and provide further fodder for the Oliver Stone bashing that frequently takes place on the list. So Rich will discover that his position within the group shifts, from topic to topic and from week to week. He may, on Week One of his involvement in the list, find himself in agreement with Sally (who adores Katharine Hepburn) and then on Week Two find himself in opposition to Sally (who harbors just as firm an opinion that Rebecca de Mornay's acting attempts reveal a distinct lack of talent that no amount of role coaching, or even acting lessons, could remedy).
Typical Messages and Patterns of Interaction
Individual messages can originate a new topic or respond to a topic already being discussed, or both. Following are two typical messages that appeared on the list during Phase I of my research: the first originating a new topic (the director's cut of JFK) and the second responding. In the first message, Sergio [14] criticizes a movie he saw recently, and uses the anecdote as a launching point to emphasize the gullibility of modern youth.
The "director's cut" of JFK turns out to be 20 minutes more detestable and mendacious than the first cut. Goebbels couldn't have done better.
A typically despicable "restoration" is the scene based on Jim Garrison's appearance on the Tonight show. I remember that show vividly--Carson was subdued and respectful, and devoted the entire show to Garrison. In O' Stone's version, "Johnny Johnson," in the snide and unsubtle person of John Larroquette, does nothing but toss out sarcastic and demeaning remarks to noble lawyer Garrison, who quietly puts him in his place--at which point Garrison is yanked off the show. I guess this must be artistic license.
It makes me dizzy to think of an entire gullible, uncritical MTV generation--and other folks who ought to know better--accepting this captious claptrap as a rational interpretation of history. Miserere nobis.
Sergio
Communication through e-mail more closely resembles spoken language than do most other modes of written communication (such as written messages, faxes, memos, or journal articles) because e-mail notes are often composed quickly (thus giving them that "off-the-cuff" feel), the language used tends toward the informal, the messages are less permanent-seeming (write it, click a button, and it's gone), and the reader's response can be almost immediate. [15] All of these aspects may encourage people to speak more frankly on e-mail than they might through other written forms. Note how Sergio uses the medium to reveal aspects of his own personality: possession of a critical eye for analysis of filmic representation measured against what he remembers to be "true" within his own experience, a sharp wit, and an antagonistic attitude toward a generation that he fears does not have the requisite critical acumen to discern the difference between a cinematic gem and a poor imitation.
In the second message, Bill relates a personal anecdote to launch and substantiate a counterpoint opinion: that the lack of critical and analytical skills may not be confined to the members of a particular generation. He begins by quoting Sergio (sideways carets to the left denote quoted matter from another list member's message) to place his own message in the context of a reply. G50 denotes a 50-year-old gentleman, and YT designates "Yours Truly."
> It makes me dizzy to think of an entire gullible, uncritical MTV
> generation--and other folks who ought to know better--accepting this
> captious claptrap as a rational interpretation of history. Miserere
> nobis.
About a month ago, I took part in the following conversation with a gentleman around age 50 or so:
G50: You seen JFK yet?
YT: No, I haven't caught that one.
G50: Well, you go see it, son. Every single minute of that movie is the absolute truth, and it's gonna have to come out sooner or later.
YT: Hmm.
Those dad-burned zapped out members of the Howdy Doody generation actually buy this. And they're the ones in charge. No wonder we're in trouble.
Going to zone 5 afterburner,
Bill
Bill, a member of the generation Sergio has taken to task, turns the argument on its ear by providing personal evidence to contradict Sergio's opinion. Note the underlying debate regarding whether the media-related intellectual "junk food" we consume--the "gullible, uncritical MTV generation" vs. the "dad-burned zapped out members of the Howdy Doody generation"--adversely influences our critical capabilities.
Third parties may jump in at any point, and the discussion tends to move easily from topic to topic with the fluidity of free association. Other movie discussions may be occurring quite separately from the JFK exchange. For example, Mary may mention that she saw The Rapture over the weekend, and that she hated it because she thought the plot inconsistent and Mimi Rogers' acting poor. Joe (and several other readers of Mary's message) may respond by expressing agreement or disagreement with Mary's opinion. Joe may point out, for instance (if he disagrees with her), that in his opinion the story was meant to be taken as a parable (and he may cite interviews he has read in which the director of the film has made comments that support Joe's interpretation), and that for that reason the plot inconsistencies did not interfere with his own enjoyment of the film. Mary then defends her opinion of the film by addressing points Joe has made. Andrea may read Mary's and Joe's reviews of The Rapture and she may in turn respond to both of them, agreeing with some of Joe's insights into the film but disagreeing with other points he has made. If Andrea gives away crucial plot twists (such as information about the fatal mistake that she believes Mimi Rogers' character Sharon has made while waiting for God in the desert), she may preclude them with a "SPOILER WARNING" to indicate that readers of her post who have not yet seen the film should stop reading her message at this point if they do not want the ending of the film to be "spoiled." Andrea may finally side with Mary by stating that overall she thought The Rapture was not a very enjoyable film.
Or Pete, another subscriber, may compile and post a list of his top 10 favorite movies of all time, along with reasons why he has chosen each selection. This type of posting is guaranteed to prompt other Cinema-L members to respond in kind, with "favorites" lists of their own. The resulting discussion often becomes quite passionate, as people wax eloquent about the choices included on their own lists and/or question the choices other posters have made.
The "query" is another typical kind of message seen on the list. Sally remembers some information about a movie she saw several years ago starring Steve Martin, and she wants to rent the film on video to watch it with her mother, but she can't recall the movie's exact title, so she posts a message to the list giving all the information she can remember and asking if anyone can help her out by supplying the movie's title. Joan (and Bob, and then Sue) responds that the movie's title was Pennies from Heaven, and she posts some helpful information about where Sally might obtain a purchase or rental copy of the film. Any query often elicits a number of very similar or even identical posts, and other times elicits contradictory responses (Bob may posit his own opinion that the name of the film was The Jerk). If, however, Sally remembers part of the Steve Martin movie but can't recall if it was any good or not, she might solicit opinions on whether or not the video is worth renting. This kind of query then elicits a number of opinions, some in favor of and some opposing the film in question.
A message that responds to one topic may also initiate a new topic. For instance, in the example described immediately above (Sally's question about the Steve Martin film), Polly may respond to Sally's request for information by posting the name of the film. She may observe that Christopher Walken also appeared in that film. Polly then requests a list (from any or all Cinema-L members who can help) of Christopher Walken's film credits (a filmography). Polly's message is then, all at once, a response to Sally's original request for information on Pennies from Heaven, as well as an initiation of a new topic, Christopher Walken's filmography. From there, the discussion may turn to analysis of Walken's role in Pulp Fiction, and then on to a debate about the relative merits of Quentin Tarantino as director, or to an evaluative commentary on the prominence of graphic violence in current cinema. This is how the daily "conversation" on Cinema-L evolves.
Discussion lists and newsgroups provide a forum for asynchronous group discussions related to almost any topic imaginable, among people who are geographically dispersed--and who often come from a wide variety of backgrounds--but who are brought together by a common interest. On any given day, many diverse topics or "threads" are being discussed on Cinema-L concurrently. Individual topics are usually discussed over the course of a few days and then dropped, to be replaced by new topics. For example, following is a list of the range of subjects discussed in the postings that appeared on April 22 during Phase I of my research: sexism in the movies, and specifically in Disney movies; the author of the song "That's Entertainment"; the acting ability of Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson (defenders of Cruise's talents, on this list at least, seem to be predominantly female); the movie Rich in Love; the likelihood of the production of Terminator 3; the movie Splitting Heirs; the Waco tragedy of April 19; and movies that utilize voice-over narration. An assortment of messages from April 23 wandered from Tom Cruise to Tony Curtis, to Waco, to Harry Belafonte and Elvis, to Beetlejuice.
Topics discussed on the list during Phase II of my research in April 1996 were similarly divergent, including but not limited to the following:
The list also included the usual range of movie quizzes (the "trivial pursuit" of any cinema buff), pet peeves (such as people who leave before the credits of a movie have ended), top 10 lists, and rumors of privileged "inside information" on impending cinema releases.
"All topics having to do with cinema" is fairly broadly interpreted on Cinema-L. Although the topic that the list ostensibly revolves around is cinema, conversation expands to include current events, jokes, and personal anecdotes. The list thus becomes a forum for social interaction as well as the sharing of information. The list community's self-consciousness about "media in general" generates many a discussion of the complex interaction between the media and our everyday lives; and therefore leads to frequent forays out of the realm of celluloid and into the everyday, much like the ventures of the Jeff Daniels character in Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo. The data I gathered suggest the distinct possibility that the online environment may be creating a new public forum where politics, current events, and ethical issues can be discussed and debated. From time to time, the discourse incorporates commentary on topics far beyond the stated purpose of the list. For example, during the 1992 political campaigns, a list "regular" posted scathing, witty reviews of the televised presidential and vice-presidential debates. Also, around the time of the Rodney King trial, there was much discussion on the list related to whether the videotape footage, taken out of context (i.e., without showing what led up to the incident, and what followed), could in and of itself "prove" whether Rodney King was indeed a victim of an overzealous law enforcement system or a dangerous criminal whose rough treatment was warranted.
Any discussion of current events may evolve into a debate about how the current event in question and/or similar events are depicted in cinema. For example, the discussion of the validity of using the videotape footage of the Rodney King incident during the trial to "prove" the inherent "truth" of what had happened during the event evolved into a discussion of Oliver Stone's use of similar newsreel-type footage in the film JFK. In the film, such footage had been placed within a context that supported Stone's own opinions related to the intrigue surrounding the events which took place in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
The Waco tragedy of April 19, 1993, wherein Branch Davidian leader Vernon Howell (a.k.a. David Koresh) and his followers perished in a fiery blaze coincided with a discussion on the list which began with a list member's query the previous week about other subscribers' impressions of the movie The Rapture, a film that explores issues related to personal religious fervor and apocalyptic visions.
Current events of particular heroism or tragedy sometimes provoke passionate discussions on personal values and beliefs, pointing up one of the list's sometime roles as a public forum for moral negotiation by a larger than local community. The list's nonlinear discourse jumps fluidly from topic to topic, and from cinematic to "real-life" events, weaving back and forth and including aspects of each to illuminate the other. For example, in April 1996, a thread that started with the barnyard fable Babe turned into an intertextual analysis of cinema, television, current events, the meaning of art, and the relative value of human vs. animal life. One of the items under discussion was the story of a "hero cat" that had been in the news: a mother cat who had risked her own life again and again by making multiple trips into a burning building to rescue her kittens. The cat was taken in by the North Shore Animal League and became something of a media celebrity as a result of the event.
What a story, huh? The great and powerful kitty has my vote for most honorable creature of the decade. I hope this example is brought up when considering cats for animal testing. The local college, for example, uses live cats to merely *teach* students. It also reminds me of a discussion we once had on cine-hell a long while back--if a house was burning down and you could save either a kitten or a Rembrandt--which would you save? I, of course, would save the kitten, as it is the far greater work of art.
Suzanna
--------------------
Hell, if the cats are teaching the students at your local college, then I'd teach the kitten to save the Rembrandt in case of fire. Damn, those cats are smart. ;-)
--Cheryl
"WHERE THE HELL ARE THE SINGING CATS?" (For two points, name the celeb who shouted this from the audience on Letterman's first show with CBS.)
----------------------
Nicely said, Suzanna. Don't you wish everyone thought that way. I think the world would be a lot better place to live if people accepted animals as equals.
Lori G.
----------------------
Paul Newman?
--Belinda
---------------------
*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*!
We have a *winner*!
Johnny, what do we have for the lovely lady? ;-)
(Newman storms out of the theater when he finds out that there are indeed NO singing cats in the show's line-up for the evening.)
--Cheryl
------------------
I posed the original question that was originally posed by Rosalyn on NORTHERN EXPOSURE and was originally posed by who the hell knows. The question is: Without life there is no art? or Without art there is no life? Most people surveyed say they would grab their photo albums, or in my case, I'd grab my writings. I would grab the Rembrandt in the same fashion--it's a photo of someone's creativity, talent, brilliance, and experiences and to let it burn would be criminal.
But to get back to the question at hand, I sincerely believe that without art there is no life . . . or no vestige of a good life.
Furthermore, I work at a research facility where oftentimes mice and sometimes monkeys or other animals are used in research. Because of this research, human lives are saved. I do not feel that is wrong [ . . . . ] I just got back from a 7:00am lecture of a friend who is doing research as to why the body's immuno-system does not reject a fetus as foreign. To determine this, they are doing experiments on mice. Because of his research we are likely to better understand, and perhaps prevent, birth defects, miscarriage and retardation. That's extremely important and the ends most assuredly justify the means.
And no mouse is equal to me, that's a fact.
But that is just my opinion.
Robyn Renninger-Rand
------------------
Robyn Renninger-Rand wrote:
>But to get back to the question at hand, I sincerely believe that >without art there is no life . . . or no vestige of a good life.
And of course, without life, there's no art at all.
Booze Boy
-----------------
>>But to get back to the question at hand, I sincerely believe that >>without art there is no life . . . or no vestige of a good life.
>And of course, without life, there's no art at all.
But is life worth living without art? Hmmmm? Answer that, Booze Boy!
Robyn Renninger-Rand
-----------------
>"WHERE THE HELL ARE THE SINGING CATS?" (For two points, >name the celeb who shouted this from the audience on Letterman's >first show with CBS.)
Paul Newman--I hear it everyday, I have it as the closing line on my computer as Windows shuts down.
Angela
The topic of the relative value of animals and what it means to be human resurfaced again later in the month, in a discussion of the movie The Truth about Cats and Dogs:
All subscribed animal lovers will be pleased to know that all of the animal scenes were very pleasant. I have a difficult time watching movies that show animals that are injured or killed and I was very pleased and relieved that nothing like that was in this movie. The scene with the boxer on roller skates is especially hysterical.
Celia
The reply of Abraham, a list regular who had been primarily in "lurk" mode for most of the month, pointed out an inconsistency he perceived in the discussion: that great concern was being generated around filmic scenes of animal abuse, but that scenes containing similar levels of violence among people often go unchallenged:
The truth about cats and dogs is that they're not human beings. When we start respecting animals more than humans (humans dying on screen don't bother us as much as animals dying), there's something wrong. I've always found my relationships with humans far more meaningful than my relationships with animals. I don't know why. I guess I'm just human.
Likewise, the mid-month fatal crash of seven-year-old Jessica Dubroff during her attempt to set a transcontinental flight record generated much discussion on the list. A thread that had begun with a discussion of possible cast members for "Unabomber, the Movie" (Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski had recently been taken into custody) turned into an analysis of who was at fault for the Dubroff tragedy:
Oh I don't know, I think the Unabomber story is pretty fascinating. Perhaps because I live in Northern California and work for a law firm which has the type of clients who would have been targets for the Unabomber. He seemed a very close and real threat at times. Actually, I'm waiting for the book. But I was thinking maybe Clint Eastwood for the movie. But puh-lease, I hope they don't make one about Jessica Dubroff.
--Lori G.
---------------------------
They probably will. What a horrible way to die. Cessna planes are dangerous even in clear weather.
...wendy...
--------------------------
I can see it now, starring both Olsen Twins as the plucky young lass with a will to fly. Ryan O'Neal as the pushy dad, and the acting comeback of David Soul of STARSKY n HUTCH fame as the addled flight instructor. The soundtrack will play the Mister Mister classic "Take These Broken Wings" throughout the whole film to the point of sickness, and it will be aired during November sweeps head to head against NBC's "A DIFFERENT WORLD REUNION SPECIAL" and CBS's "RETURN OF FOUL UPS BLEEPS and BLUNDERS."
Brian Dennehey will also be featured, as he is in most movies.
Turn off your TVs while you can.
Booze Boy
-------------------------
>puh-lease, I hope they don't make one about Jessica Dubroff.
>>...What a horrible way to die. Cessna planes are dangerous even in >>clear weather.
Sez who? I've logged about 100 hours in Cessnas, and like them just fine. They're as safe or as unsafe as the person at the controls.
This isn't about aircraft, it's about irresponsible adults making stupid decisions that kill children.
Sergio
------------------------
Sergio wrote:
>Sez who? I've logged about 100 hours in Cessnas, and like them just >fine. They're as safe or as unsafe as the person at the controls.
Oh my. Please never get on one again. I'm your mother and I order you to stay on the ground.
>This isn't about aircraft, it's about irresponsible adults making stupid >decisions that kill children.
Hallelujah. Right on. What in the hell were those parents thinking? The mother saying that Jessica wanted to "fly until she died." Well, hell, my nephew would love to jump into the Pacific and swim with the fishies. And he's only two! Since when are seven year olds allowed to make those kinds of decisions, for crying out loud.
Suzanna
(you are forbidden to fly, son)
-------------------------
The parents, scary as they are, don't bear as much blame as the CFI (certified flight instructor) who was the pilot in command, without whose permission the flight could not have proceeded.
Few aircraft, certainly not light aircraft, are designed to fly in rotten weather. Pilots go far out of their way to avoid it, and often must anger pushy clients by refusing to take off into it. Regardless of the faux-heroid posturing of this unfortunate girl's monstrous stage-parents, the CFI had a professional duty to avoid a chancy situation by just saying no.
Because so few non-fliers understand the mechanics of flight and the protocols of aviation, a fiasco like this does undeserved damage to a remarkably responsible (and tightly regulated) industry. If our jalopies had to pass the kind of inspections that every lightplane must pass, the highways would be empty. These people were not killed by an unsafe aircraft or an unsafe system. The vainglorious dad and the dumb CFI killed themselves, and took an innocent 7-year-old with them.
There's a morbid, cautionary mock-weather-forecast that gets muttered around airports after this kind of needless slaughter--"scattered thundershowers, followed by widely scattered bone meal and aluminum chips." It's getting muttered a lot today, you betcha.
OCC--casting for the TV movie.
Dad...Tom Arnold
Mom...Elisabeth Shue
CFI...Nicolas Cage
Sergio
Note how the issue was brought up and legitimated for the list's discussion by framing it in terms of a potential movie offering: although later on the conversation moved into the specifics of aerodynamics and icy wings, and then on to the relative merits of Cherokees vs. Cessnas, the discussion wandered in and out of a context of television and film conventions (casting issues, timing for release of the film, the "monstrous stage-parents" in search of fame and fortune), with the occasional "OCC" ("obligatory cinema content" or "obligatory cinema comment," depending on who on the list you ask) thrown in, and the tone of the conversation alternating between indignation and frivolity. Usually, in a discussion of current events where the topic strays far from the list's stated subject (in this particular case, cinema) a list member or two will eventually speak up with the query, "Is this really an appropriate topic for discussion on this list?" or "So . . . has anybody seen any good movies lately?" And gradually, the subject returns to cinema. In this particular case, Sergio simultaneously ended the discussion and attempted to diffuse some of the seriousness of the issues in the following posting addressed to Suzanna (incidentally, not his real mother, and located almost a full continent away from him) which he sent to the list:
>Oh, my. Please never get on one again. I'm your mother and I order >you to stay on the ground.
>Suzanna
>(you are forbidden to fly, son)
Oh, ma. I always give old Bessie's tires a good kick before firing her up. Besides, like most pilots without certifiably nutty stage parents, I'd as soon take off in gusty rain as walk into an open elevator shaft.
In the online environment, the basic unit of communication is the individual message. The construction of a message--"from line" information about its point of origin, as well as the author's salutation, content, and signature style--contributes to other list members' perceptions of its sender. The list's dual founding philosophy is that both movies and computer-mediated communication, if used as a launching point for discussion, have the potential to bring people together around common themes. On Cinema-L, the tone and content of individual messages contribute to an ever-evolving series of fandom positionings and social interactions, with the spontaneity and timeliness of e-mail interactions causing such communication to more closely resemble spoken language than many other, more formal written forms.
Typical messages might initiate a new topic, respond to an existing topic, present a quiz, include a "favorites" list, or query the list members for information. List discussion tends to revolve around mainstream, commercially available U.S. cinema releases, and media issues in general. The list functions as a very fluid, nonlinear environment where discussions about the intersection of art and life often lead to another (perhaps unintended) role of the list as a forum for the discussion of current events, in which forays "off-topic" can be legitimized by presenting them using the guise of cinematic conventions.