andthesunsaid.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewpromises to become one of the most important educational factors that man has added to his equipment since the invention of printing

Jordanna Packtor, Emily Versteeg

LSC 597 - Library Film Education

Dr. Renee Hobbs

University of Rhode Island

Windows in the Wall: The Necessity of Film Programming in Libraries

5/05/2016

“We live in a box of space and time. Movies are windows in its walls. They allow us to enter other minds, not simply in the sense of identifying with the characters, although that is an

important part of it, but by seeing the world as another person sees it” (Ebert, 2002, para. 1).

Windows in the Wall: The Necessity of Film Programming in Libraries 1

If asked to describe the 21st century in one sentence, most people would respond with a

variation of the Information Age or the Digital Age or the Age of New Media. Some may even

call it the Golden Age of Television, citing the critical and commercial success of shows like

“Breaking Bad,” “Mad Men,” and “Game of Thrones” (Wolcott, 2012; Trench, 2015; Carr,

2014).

Few, if any, would think to mention movies. In a world of Netflix binges, live Twitter

streams, and push notifications, films can seem obsolete, outdated. We don’t devote entire talk

shows to dissecting them or watch them on our phones while waiting in line. Sometimes, we

have to wait weeks for a film we saw in theaters to become available on DVD. Even the

Academy Awards, the epitome of industry success, have been condemned as irrelevant. The 21st

century may be the age of many things, but the Golden Age of Hollywood came and went eight

decades ago.

Yet films have endured. According to a Pew report, 71 percent of Americans watch at

least one movie a week (Taylor, Funk, & Craighill, 2006). Despite declining box office sales,

over 1.2 billion movie tickets were sold last year (The Numbers, 2016). In response to a series of

articles on the decline of films, a 2012 New Yorker headline fired back: “The Movies Aren’t

Dying (They’re Not Even Sick).” According to its author, we are, in fact, “living…in something

of a cinematic golden age, an era of radical cinema” (Brody, 2011, para. 1).

The fact is that films are an indelible part of American culture, inevitably linked to our

sense of self and society. “Movies, like other popular culture texts…‘help to actually create

understandings of who we think we are, how we think we are, how we regard others, and how

members of a group identify and understand their group membership…’” (Williams, 2009, p.

83). Schlesinger (1979) called film “the most potent vehicle for American imagination…movies


have something to tell us not just about the surfaces but the mysteries of American life” (as qted.

in Short, 1991, p. 178). Despite the multitude of mediums now available to us, the movie - much

like the book - is still dominant within our cultural narrative.

Libraries are no exception. Forty percent of patrons visit their library to borrow DVDs

and videotapes; five percent say that their usage has increased due to the availability of such

media (Zickuhr, Rainie, & Purcell, 2012). After books, movies are the highest circulating library

material (Hoffert, 2013). According to Hoffert (2015) “media now accounts for 24.4% of the

budget,” with DVDs/Blu-rays comprising 12.1% (para. 3). Meanwhile, though book circulation

has declined, movie circulation - including DVDs, Blu-rays, and downloadable formats - has

risen over the past four years (Hoffert, 2015).

In fact, libraries have long been repositories and purveyors of film. Five years after the

United States opened its first movie theater, public libraries started featuring films as part of their

regular programming (Mondello, 2005; Sigler, 1978). According to Horne (2011), “the public

library became an auxiliary site for motion picture spectatorship” during the early 20th century,

establishing itself as “the most ideal environment for cinema, one best able to exploit the artistic,

educational, and technological aspects of the medium” (p. 5, p. 36).

During this period, library professionals lauded film for its potential as an educational

tool. In 1924, the American Library Association released a report stating that “‘no means

of...education has greater possibilities than the film’” (Sigler, 1978, p. 11). The director of the

Newark Public Library went so far as to say that film:

promises to become one of the most important educational factors that man has added to

his equipment since the invention of printing. It is quite possible that it will inform the

world, interest the world and broaden the world even more rapidly than the printing press


ever has...in the field of instruction it may prove the greatest instrument ever devised

(Horne, 2011, p. 23).

In later decades, libraries created standards for acquisition, distribution, and community

programming; offered “films dealing with current social or economic problems, and followed by

carefully conducted adult group discussion with supplementary reading lists and book exhibits”;

organized cooperatives; and sought to establish an overarching philosophy for film library

services (Sigler, 1978, p. 13). Through the 1980s, public libraries like one in Spokane

participated in film circuits, offered weekly film screenings, shared movies with community

centers and during local events, and hosted film programs that lasted for years (Irons, 2014).

But at the turn of the twenty-first century, something changed. With the advent of the

VHS, which made it easy for people to watch movies in the comfort of their homes, the

community film experience fell out of vogue. “The focus of libraries became helping patrons

create individual viewing experiences, rather than create communal ones”; eventually, “libraries

became movie suppliers, drifting out of the film programming business” (Irons, p. 3). By 1998,

only 20 percent of libraries were still offering film series (Johnson, 1999). Now, most adhere to

the “play and walk away” approach, foregoing the screenings, discussions, programs, and events

that once made libraries critical sites of film spectatorship. As recently as 2011, Jacobson (2011)

chastised his colleagues for their negligent approach toward film services, writing: “Your

library’s films are some of the highest-quality work in your building, [yet are] often unjustly

ignored, maligned, and simply consigned to ‘popular material’” (para. 2). Such attitudes

represent a drastic departure from earlier professionals, who saw film and film programming as

“‘intimately related to the library’s...function as an institution’” (Sigler, 1978, p. 16). Today, it is

undervalued and under-offered service, a postscript in library programming.


Nowhere is this more apparent than in the literature. A brief search of mainstream library

journals - including Library Journal, The Library Quarterly, Young Adult Library Services,

Library Trends, and Reference & User Services Quarterly - yields few results for “film program”

or “film programming” after 2000. The articles that come up are primarily concerned with

recommendations, reviews, and book-to-movie adaptations. When pieces that focus specifically

on film programming do appear, they often come across as perfunctory; relegating what a former

ALA director once described as “‘one of the most important and time-consuming’” library tasks

to a few anecdotal publications (Sigler, 1978, p. 19; Jacobson, 2011; Lupa, 2007; Chase, 2012;

Gladstone, 2013; Irons, 2015).

Such “how-to” articles have undoubtedly helped individual librarians and inspired

successful film programs; yet they lack context, and a broader awareness of film services as a

whole. This is in marked contrast to earlier literature on film programming, which often

incorporated history, film studies, and social science research alongside specific

recommendations (Hiatt, 1965; Burch, 1949; Peltier, 1978; Haynes, 1978; Bennett, 1950; Day,

1955). It is a surprising shift, given both the continued popularity of film among library users, as

well as the extensive body of work that has emerged in recent years regarding various

approaches to, and benefits of, film and film education.

For instance, psychologists now believe that certain movies can help viewers cultivate

key character strengths and values, including wisdom, humanity, and temperance (Niemiec &

Wedding, 2014; Rufer, 2014). In their seminal work on positive psychology in cinema, Niemiec

and Wedding (2014) assert that “the medium of film, more than any other art form, is able to

portray the subtleties of the human mind...and their impact on behavior” (p. 5). They then

proceed to demonstrate how viewers might identify and replicate such subtleties in order to


“elicit greater well-being, deeper engagement with life, and better relationships. Movies,” they

argue, “are one way - and a good way - to get there” (Niemiec & Wedding, 2014, p. x). Other

researchers have offered insight into how certain kinds of films and film experiences can educate

the public and mobilize communities on a local, national, and global level (Roy, 2012; Winton,

2007; Whiteman, 2004). Community organizers and nonprofit groups have detailed how the

production and distribution of film can engage and empower disenfranchised populations, both

within and without the United States (Charmaraman, 2013; Rosales, 2013; Women Win, 2015;

Higgins, 1999; Kim & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). And numerous educators, sociologists, historians,

and literary experts have identified film as a key educational resource, echoing those past

librarians who saw film as having unparalleled educational possibilities (Swain, 2013;

O’Connor, 1988; Bahloul & Graham, 2012; Giveans, 1988; Cruse, n.d., Reid, 2015; Baker, 2006;

Stoddard & Marcus, 2010). Yet despite this proliferation of multidisciplinary research on film

and its uses, the library field seems unwilling or unable to incorporate any of these perspectives

into its conception of film services. As a result, the literature lacks any unifying concept of film

programming and any coherent understanding of its uses.

This failure to recognize film’s importance in the library is not limited to the literature. It

is also reflected and perpetuated at the graduate level, with most programs ignoring film outside

of courses covering audiovisual archives. Of the 51 GSLIS programs in the United States, a

survey of course catalogs reveals that only 20 programs offer any kind film-related course:


The majority of these focus on general media studies, with only seven of the 20

specifically addressing film programming. As a result of this deficiency, GSLIS graduates are

entering the workforce without the formal skills necessary to analyze film and create effective

and meaningful film programs. While more LIS programs are adopting general media literacy

courses, far too few focus on film specifically. And without the structure of an existing

paradigm, it will be difficult for current and future librarians to expand beyond the simple film

screening or to justify such an expansion to others.

For example, 75 percent of librarians and GSLIS students surveyed for this article said

that their greatest obstacle to film programming was knowing how to create interactive and

educational services that appropriately complemented their selected films. Unfamiliar with the

work being done outside the library field and generally untrained in film education, respondents


found the process to be incredibly time-consuming. GSLIS student Robin Berry explains: “I

never imagined how much work went into creating a successful [film] program for children. The

day of the program went by so fast, it was difficult to believe how many weeks my team had put

into creating it” (Berry, 2016a, para. 2).

According to the American Library Association (2014), some programs can take over a

year to plan, if they are to be successful and relevant to the community’s needs. Such a timeline

can seem particularly daunting to those inexperienced with film programming and its

concomitant challenges. This is especially true when librarians are only given a month or two to

plan their programs. As one GSLIS student reported:

When the American Library Association claims you may need more than a year to plan,

promote and put on a new program, it can be intimidating when you start working on

your own. Especially when you realize that you only have about two months to do the

same! (Lancellotta, 2016, para. 11).

Even after expending considerable time and effort, librarians still often doubt the success

of their film programs. Many question whether or not their program will serve the community

and inspire attendees beyond passive viewing. The ALA (2014) provides a list of deep-level

impacts that programs should strive to achieve. Examples include heightened awareness of a

particular topic; generation of new questions and ideas; increased confidence in one’s abilities;

and recognition that something has “pushed one’s mind.” These goals are difficult to reach even

when working within a familiar pedagogical structure and without the additional obstacles film

screenings can bring - such as the need for appropriate audiovisual equipment and performance

space, proper licenses, age-suitability, etc.


With doubts of program success, many libraries may be reluctant to dedicate the

necessary funds and staff time. The financial burden of paying licensing fees, using staff

resources, and reserving library space that could be used for more established programming may

lead libraries to not implement film services at all. Others may not be sure how to obtain such

funds and resources in the first place. According to Lancellotta (2016), who followed a movie

screening with a stop animation workshop, funding was a significant problem:

Another challenge was that there was no money for supplies and the library had no

modeling clay. I ended up paying for it myself (and a tripod… and art supplies… and oil

for the popcorn machine… etc.). I did not mind doing this but, if I were doing this

activity on a regular basis, I would have to come up with some way for the program to

pay for itself. (personal communication, April 25, 2016).

On top of funding difficulties and unsupportive libraries, many librarians struggle to

understand the complex copyright and licensing procedures involved with screening films:

Actually, I have no idea how movie licensing works. I never got around to looking into it

and I didn’t learn much about it in class. I wasn’t always the best student, but hey, I did

graduate… so, I don’t think it’s all my fault. I was never expected to show a movie at any

of my jobs in libraries, but I guess it can be complicated with what movies are covered

under a license. I’d like a job as a teen librarian one day and I’ll probably want to show

some anime at some point. Is that even possible? I don’t know… (T. DeRosa, personal

communication, April 16, 2016).

At the school library level, media specialists must field skepticism from administrators

and parents, who often view film programming as more passive screen time for children.

Unsupported by a broader framework, librarians may struggle to counter accusations of lazy


instruction. One elementary school librarian who shared films with her students worried about “a

parent or school administrator questioning the teaching of film in the library classroom. I could

see someone saying something like, ‘they are just watching movies in the library’” (S. Jordan,

personal communication, April 19, 2016). Another former children’s librarian found that

children’s film programming must adhere to an especially high standard: “As a parent and a

former children's librarian, I really want to see less screen time for kids UNLESS the adults and

the kids are talking about what they're watching” (R. Nyzio, personal communication, April 22,

2016).

Yet the benefits of film programming have the potential to far outweigh the challenges.

Film programming can improve critical thinking and media literacy, encouraging participants to

actively engage with film material on a broader level. According to the Media Literacy Project

(2015), media literacy is an essential skill for the 21st century, encompassing “the ability to

access, analyze, evaluate, and create media” (para. 1). Media literate children and adults can

more easily decode the complex messages received from radio, internet, television, film,

newspapers, magazines, books, billboards, video games, music, and other new forms of media.

Garcia-Cardona (2002) went so far as to argue that children who learn media literacy skills make

better life decisions. By including film in public and school libraries, patrons to learn to “read”

film critically and identify those images that reflect distorted versions of reality. Without such

training, it can be difficult to navigate in the modern era, to recognize media manipulation,

engage with society, express different perspectives, promote social change, analyze motivations,

and combat bigotry. Reality-based media, including film, asserts the artist’s preconceptions and

reflections of his or her own attitudes and interpretations as truth. Garcia-Cardona (2002) argues


that “critical media literacy skills are needed to develop in our children the necessary cognitive,

emotional, and ethical abilities to be able to interpret [...] media messages” (p. 88).

Film programming can also act as a mechanism for community transformation,

encouraging connections, exposing injustices, altering opinions, and calling attention to

problems and solutions. According to Roy (2012), community film experiences have the

potential to (1) Affirm life choices; (2) Encourage connections; (3) Denounce injustices and

spread awareness; (4) Transform views; (5) Foster questioning and active involvement; and (6)

Reveal possibilities. These outcomes are shockingly familiar to the deep-level impacts proposed

by the American Library Association (2014).

And much like literature, certain film experiences can inspire new generations of

storytellers. Indian filmmaker Mira Nair recalls her first cinematic experience:

It was only at the age of 20 or 21 that I understood cinema could be taken seriously. I

never had any involvement with it [before then]. When I was 20, I enrolled in a course in

film-making [...] My professor showed the class La Jetée. That was certainly the

epiphany. I saw it in a classroom with maybe 15 people and my professor. It was

unforgettable. It crystallised that this would be possible for me, too. This I understood.

(Macnab, 2009, para. 23-24)

Without her community film experience and ensuing discussion, Nair might have never become

a filmmaker. And while film in general can inspire new storytellers, libraries are in a special

position to encourage digital storytelling through makerspaces, film workshops, and equipment

lending. Libraries and film are a perfect match.

Dr. Yan Ma (2015), a LIS professor at the University of Rhode Island, argues that a

sweeping change in library education is needed to move forward. Library professionals must


have the skills to decode and disseminate all forms of information if they hope to effectively

serve their communities. Global advances in digital communication and technology provide

instant access to information and allow media to proliferate on an epic scale. Ma (2015) explains

that “viewing a visual does not automatically ensure that one will learn from it. Students need to

be taught to learn the critical thinking skills toward decoding of visuals” (p. 18). LIS education

still focuses on curriculum and materials that serve an antiquated paradigm focused on text-based

information. But as Ma (2015) reminds us, “The visual information world has confronted and

challenged the LIS profession with constant creation of meaning” and we need to prepare LIS

students to decode that meaning for their communities (p. 18).

The lack of film education in GSLIS programs is part of a larger problem: GSLIS

education needs to shift toward embracing all forms of media and information, especially as

technology progresses. With YouTube, Vine, Instagram, and other social media platforms, the

ability to create digital storytelling is increasing all the time. In order to produce librarians who

can create effective and transformative film programs, library science must incorporate film

services and education into its literature, its pedagogy, and its professional development. It must

acknowledge film as a legitimate and established conduit of information. Any number of

possible approaches could be adapted from various others fields. For example, fine art programs

require both critique and creation. We see this model mirrored in new GSLIS digital/visual

literacy courses, which require students to both decode visual meaning and create it using a

variety of software tools and equipment.

In addition to this paradigmatic shift, LIS students and librarians also require further

“nuts and bolts” instruction. Where can librarians find films that are both engaging and thought-

provoking? How can librarians obtain permission to show such movies? What can we do to


reach audiences on a deeper and more meaningful level? Some GSLIS programs are embracing

this specific need for film programming instruction. In addition to numerous visual and digital

literacy courses, the University of Rhode Island offers a course directly focused on film

programming. “Film Education in Libraries” is described as follows:

This course explores the potential of film and moving image media in the context of

school, public and academic libraries, with a special focus on the needs of children and

teens. The course advances the capacities of library and information professionals to

develop innovative programs, services, materials, and collections to meet the needs of

children, young people and families. (Hobbs, 2016, p. 1)

In this course, students discuss everything from critical analysis of film to licensing issues, to

community engagement and programming.

While not as concerned with the “nuts and bolts” of film programming, the University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign offers “Child Lit Goes to the Movies” which focuses on critical

analysis:

Examines the interpretive structures of American children's movies based on children's

literature: how literal fidelity relates to creative license (i.e., adaptation versus

translation); how evolving understandings of race, gender, ethnicity and age affect filmic

interpretation and presentation; if a book's theme or core narrative can be divided from

the cultural, ideological and political influences that constitute its identity; how

successful children's films of the past impose upon the presentation of new works; does

knowledge of the original book enrich the experience of going to the movie (and does the

movie enrich one's understanding of the original book), or are movie and book are

essentially separate. (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015)


Jacobson (2011) argues that librarians must be taught to choose “discussable movies” (para. 11)

that offer a rich experience to create successful film programming. Understanding the basics of

film theory will hone this ability, and classes like the “Child Lit Goes to the Movies” can do just

that.

Outside of GSLIS education, the Providence Children’s Film Festival (PCFF) is helping

fill the gap in academic institutions by providing resources for community screenings of

children’s independent film outside of the organization’s own festival dates. The Providence

Children’s Film Festival (2016) strives to “present the best of independent and international

children’s cinema to inspire, delight, educate, and connect a diverse community of children and

families from Rhode Island and throughout New England” (para. 1). The online PCFF “Film

Hub” offers a directory of children’s independent film titles categorized by type, theme, and age.

Each film has a synopsis, and some films are accompanied by a complementary Study Guide for

assistance in creating influential film programming to accompany a screening. The website is a

rich resource for youth librarians who would like to show film, but aren’t sure where to start.

Library students who attended the PCFF festival reaffirmed Roy’s (2012)

characterization of community film experiences as “transformative.” Steager (2016) wrote, “Via

the magic of film, I visited eleven countries [...] I spoke to and met many new people from

Rhode Island and beyond” (para. 18). Zemske (2016) called PCFF “brilliant. To be fair, I only

attended one hour long event but I can safely say that I liked what I saw” (para. 6). Berry

(2016b) reported: “All of these films have a moral or a message and can be seen through an

educational lens. I would recommend this event to others” (para. 13). While Ortobello (2016)

simply wrote “I thought this program was remarkable. I learned so much about the film industry

from both the producer’s and filmmaker’s point of view” (para. 9). By attending even a single

Emily Vee, 05/05/16,

This PCFF bit feels like an afterthought compared to what Anisa might have been expecting, but I feel like Dr. Hobbs and Anisa had different papers in mind for us. Since Dr. Hobbs is the one grading, I'm OK with this as is. If you have any suggestions, let me know!!


film festival, library students and librarians can begin to understand how powerful film

programming looks in action.

Film can be so much more than a passive experience. In the right context, with the right

guidance, it has the potential to change values, perspectives, and lives.By enlarging and

improving our professional and educational understanding of film programming, we can offer

patrons their own “windows in the wall”; we can give them the opportunity to “enter other

minds” and expand their understanding of the world around them (Ebert, 2002, para.1). The

nature of library services gives us an unique opportunity to be a part of this transformative

process; let’s stop wasting it.


Works Cited

American Library Association. (2014). National Impact of Library Public Programs

Assessment White Paper. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Bahloul, M., & Graham, C. (Eds.). (2012). Lights! Camera! Action and the brain: The use of

film

in education. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Baker, F. (2006). To kill a mockingbird: Seeing the film through the lens of media literacy.

Media Literacy Clearinghouse. Retrieved from

http://www.frankwbaker.com/mlc/mockingbird-introduction/

Berry, R. (2016a). Reflective essay 2 [Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://robinslibraryblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/reflective-essay-2-3/

Berry, R. (2016b). Leap 2 cinema circus [Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://robinslibraryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/leap-2-cinema-circus/

Bennett, F. (1950). Films in the academic library. College and Research Libraries, 11(2),

125-130.

Brody, R. (2012, September 22). The movies aren’t dying (they’re not even sick). The New

Yorker. Retrieved from

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-movies-arent-dying-theyre-not-

even-sick

Brody, R. (2011, March 13). Moving pictures, shifting frames. The New Yorker. Retrieved from

http://www.newyorker.com/the-front-row/moving-pictures-shifting-frames

Burch, G. (1949). Your patrons need films. Library Journal, 74, 413-417.

Carr, D. (2014, March 9). Barely keeping up in TV’s new golden age. The New York Times.


Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/media/fenced-in-by-televisions-excess-of

excellence.html

Charmaraman, L. (2013). Congregating to create for social change: Urban youth media

production and sense of community. Learn Media Technology, 38(1), 102-115.

Chase, S. (2012, November 2). Movie discussions at the library! [Web log interview]. Retrieved

from http://libraries.idaho.gov/blogs/sarahchase/movie-discussions-library

Cruse, E. (n.d.). Using educational video in the classroom: Theory, research and practice.

Library Video Company.

Day, D.L. (1955). Films in the library. Library Trends, 4(2), 174-181.

Ebert, R. (2002, April 21). What makes a masterpiece? The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/apr/21/features

Garcia-Cardona, W. (2007). Can you picture it? Semiotic representations of social class

in photographs. In L.M. Semali (Ed.), Transmediation in the classroom: A semiotics-

based media literacy framework (87-99). New York: Peter Lang.

Giveans, D.L. (1988). The effective use of film as a teaching tool. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 15(3), 38-39.

Gladstone, M. (2013, May 9). Real to reel film programming: A guide. Public Libraries Online .

Retrieved from http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2013/05/real-to-reel-film-programming-a-

guide/

Haynes, J. (1978). Film service to the elderly. Library Trends, 27(1), 51-58.

Hiatt, P. (1965). Urban public library services for adults of low education. The Library

Quarterly, 35(2), 81-96.


Higgins, J.W. (1998). Community television and the vision of media literacy, social action, and

empowerment. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 624-644.

Hobbs, R. (2016). Film education in libraries [Syllabus]. Kingston, RI: GSLIS,

University of Rhode Island.

Hoffert, B. (2015, March 2). Materials breakout: Materials survey 2015. Library Journal

Reviews. Retrieved from

http://reviews.libraryjournal.com/2015/03/lj-in-print/materials-breakout-

materials-survey-2015/

Hoffert, B. (2013, February 19). Materials mix: Investigating trends in materials budgets and

circulation. Library Journal. Retrieved from

http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/02/publishing/materials-mix-investigating-trends-in-

materials-budgets-and-circulation/#_

Horne, J. (2011). A history long overdue: The public library and motion picture. In C.R. Acland

& H. Wasson (Eds.), Useful cinema (213-257). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Irons, K. (2014). Film programming for public libraries. Chicago, IL: American Library

Association.

Irons, K. (2015, February 16). Screening legally: Film programming for public libraries.

American Libraries. Retrieved from

https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2015/02/16/screening-legally/

Jacobson, A. (2011, July 27). How to offer more than a movie. American Libraries. Retrieved

from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2011/07/27/how-to-offer-more-than-a-movie/

Johnson, D.W. (1999). Cultural programs for adults in public libraries: A survey report.

Chicago, IL: American Library Association


Kim, Y., & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (2006). Community storytelling network, neighborhood context,

and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Human Communication Research, 32(4),

411-439.

Lancellotta, W. (2016). Movies, libraries, and runaway trains [Web log post]. Retrieved

from https://balance128.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/movies-libraries-and-runaway-trains/

Lupa, R. (2007). LOL on screen. Young Adult Library Services, 5(4), 41-42.

Macnab, G. (2009). The movie that mattered to me. Independent. Retrived from

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/the-movie-that-mattered-

to-me-1828427.html

Media Literacy Project. (2015). What is media literacy? Media Literacy Project.

Retrieved from https://medialiteracyproject.org/learn/media-literacy/

Mondello, B. (2005, June 17). 100th anniversary of first-ever U.S. movie theater. NPR.

Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4707873

Niemiec, R.M. & Wedding, D. (2014). Positive psychology at the movies 2: Using films to build

character strengths and well-being. Boston, MA: Hogrefe.

Obertello, B. (2016). Leap 2: Providence children’s film festival [Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://brittaobertello.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/leap-2-providence-childrens-film-

festival/

O’Connor, J.E. (1988). History in images/images in history: Reflections on the importance of

film and television study for an understanding of the past. The American Historical

Review, 93(5), 1200-1209.

Peltier, E. (1978). The public library film redefined. Library Trends, 27(1), 27-38.

Providence Children’s Film Festival. (2016). What we do. Retrieved from


http://providencechildrensfilmfestival.org/mission/

Reid, M. (2015). English and film: Connecting children to the world. Changing English, 22(2),

189-198. http://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2015.1026189

Rosales, J.A. (2013). Participatory culture in echo park film center. Journal of Media Literacy

Education, 5(1), 349-356.

Roy, C. (2012). Why don’t they show those on TV? Documentary film festivals, media and

community. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(3), 293-307.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.683610

Rufer, L.J. (2014). Magic at the movies: Positive psychology for children, adolescents and

families (Master’s dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Short, J.R. (1991). Imagined country: Environment, culture, and society. Syracuse, NY:

Syracuse University Press.

Sigler, R.F. (1978). A rationale for the film as a public library resource and service. Library

Trends, 27(1), 9-26.

Steager, P. (2016) Let’s get the rhythm at PCFF: Review & analysis. Retrieved from

https://pamsteager.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/lets-get-the-rhythm-at-pcff-review-analysis/

Stoddard, J.D. & Marcus, A.S. (2010). More than showing what happened: Exploring the

potential of teaching history with film. The High School Journal, 93(2), 83-90.

Swain, H. (2013, November 19). Film can have a leading role in education. The Guardian.

Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2013/nov/19/film-

education-learning-tool-inclusion

Taylor, P., Funk, C., & Craighill, P. (2006). Increasingly, Americans prefer going to the movies


at home. Pew Research Center: A Social Trends Report. Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2006/05/16/increasingly-americans-prefer-going-to-the-

movies-at-home/

The Numbers. (2016). Domestic movie theatrical market summary 1995-2016. Nash

Foundation.

Retrieved from http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Trench, R. (2015, September 24). 10 best TV shows from the golden age of television. Screen

Rant. Retrieved from

http://screenrant.com/best-tv-shows-golden-age-television/?view=all

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2015). Full catalog. Retrieved from

https://www.lis.illinois.edu/academics/courses/catalog

Whiteman, D. (2004). Out of the theaters and into the streets: A coalition model of the political

impact of documentary film and video. Political Communication, 21(1), 51-69.

Williams, B.T. (2009). Inspired artists and office drones: Taking literacy narratives to the

movies. In A.D. Smith, T.G. Smith & R. Bobbitt (Eds.), Teaching in the pop culture

zone: Using popular culture in the composition classroom (81-90). Boston, MA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Winton, E. (2007). The spaces between: Grassroots documentary distribution and exhibition as

counterpublics (Unpublished master’s thesis). Concordia University, Quebec.

Wolcott, J. (2012, May). Prime time’s graduation. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/05/wolcott-television-better-than-movies

Women Win. (2015). Digital storytelling toolkit. National Association for Media Arts and

Culture.


Zemske, K. (2016). To the PCFF [Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://kzemske.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/to-the-pcff/

Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2013). Library services in the digital age. Pew Internet &

American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/01/22/library-services/

Documents

andthesunsaid.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewpromises to become one of the most important educational factors that man has added to his equipment since the invention of printing