Labours of Love: in Praise of Fan Websites: by Pam Cook

Frames Cinema Journal
Labours of Love: In Praise of Fan Websites

http://framescinemajournal.com
By Pam Cook
The last decade has witnessed dramatic changes in the media culture
landscape that have transformed the ways in which knowledge and ideas
are accessed, consumed, reproduced and circulated. Like many
academics, I increasingly find traditional methods of research and
learning, not to mention established pedagogic hierarchies, inadequate to
the task of engaging with the upsurge of interactivity generated by new
technologies. Debates about these cultural shifts have been going on for
some time, as scholars grapple with the transformation of power relations
between producers and consumers. Some are positive, seeing the current
conjuncture as an opportunity to rethink critical intervention and
approaches, while others are more suspicious of the consumerist
ideologies and structures in which new technologies are embedded. 1
These positions may appear polarised, but they share a concern with
reformulating the role of cultural practitioners in a rapidly changing
media environment.
One of the most significant changes has been the breaking down of what
Peter Walsh has called ‘the expert paradigm’ — the system that maintains
the authority of privileged groups that exist to impart specialist
information to the rest of the world. 2 With the proliferation of online
databases, official and unofficial, that redefine and expose the
inside/outside culture of knowledge hegemonies, the boundary separating
experts from the layperson has become blurred. Academia is deeply
implicated in this process: the role of academics as arbiters of suitable
research resources and methods has come under pressure from
community-sourced information websites. Wikipedia is a case in point:
the online encyclopedia gathers its content from unidentified ‘Wikipedia
contributors’ whose credentials cannot be verified in the usual manner,
and who monitor one another via strict editorial protocols. To use
Wikipedia properly, readers are encouraged to become editors, to be
aware of the etiquette and join the debates about the veracity, value and
objectivity of different contributions. It may not always work that way,
but in principle this participatory model differs from one in which
consumers absorb and regurgitate bodies of accepted knowledge. It
contributes to the climate of popular discussion and dissent fostered by
social media and destabilises the authority of traditional centres of
influence. In theory academia is dedicated to values of rigorous
intellectual enquiry, critical engagement and information sharing, but it
does not always work that way either. Although some would claim that
Wikipedia erodes academic standards, it is arguable that it has the
1 / 25
Frames
potentialCinema Journal
to expose the commodification of education and challenge
academic elitism. It also helps to further understanding of, and redefine,
intellectual property rights via Creative Commons. 3
The formation of inclusive, non-hierarchical virtual communities is one of

the ways in which digital technologies are perceived to enable more
democratic forms of cultural interaction. Fans have occupied a central
place in discussions of evolving networks of communication that
exchange opinions, information and artefacts between like-minded
individuals, often without respecting the conventions that govern more
legitimate enterprises. No longer perceived as passive and exploited, fans
are re-imagined as active audiences, as ‘poachers’ who plunder popular
culture and are capable of resisting official discourses and power
structures. 4 The distinction between fan and cultural activist has broken
down as academics increasingly acknowledge and seek to understand
their own affective investment in popular media. 5 At the same time,
fandom has become more mainstream as fan discourse redistributes
officially sanctioned media output to wider, more diverse audiences.
Writing about fan websites dedicated to stars, Paul McDonald identifies
reverence as the key to the relationship between the site authors and the
objects of their affections. He argues that although such activity takes
place outside institutional contexts, fan sites appear to emulate rather
than oppose the commerce of stardom. 6 To position fans, as much
academic scholarship has, as either conformist or counter-cultural runs
the risk of neglecting the diversity of fan activity and their complex
relationship to their chosen object. As well as being members of
communities, fans are individuals whose fandom is informed by their
backgrounds. While the content and tone of fan sites are generally
celebratory, this does not preclude intelligent and informed engagement
with the discourses and artefacts that are gathered and circulated. The
authors of fan websites are collectors, or ‘aggregators’, who organise
their findings into categories for distribution to other fans. They create
resources designed to provide knowledge about a star, director or film,
constructing personal memory banks. It is the role of fans as archivists,
and the research value of their collections, that concerns me here. In the
context of the paradigm shift towards lay knowledge, I want to explore
how these unsanctioned archives can be reconciled with the official
archive, if at all.
The relationship between official archives and the public has traditionally
been ambivalent. Archivists are naturally protective of their physical
collections and take measures to control access where necessary. Some
material is irreplaceable and when replacement is possible, it can be
expensive. In addition, archives are often dependent on donations of
material that requires special treatment and storage facilities and takes
time to process. Many are also confined to specialist subject areas and do
2 / 25
Frames
not storeCinema Journal
publications that fall outside that area. Before digitisation, a
researcher who consulted the public archive could expect to wait some
time before accessing the desired resources, to visit more than one
physical storage site and sometimes pay a fee. This process has its own
pleasures, including contact with historical objects and a sense of
endeavour, even adventure. Digitisation has transformed this experience
by delivering archive collections instantly via computers and other
devices to wide audiences, often without charge. At the same time, the
emergence of collaborative, not-for-profit initiatives such as the Internet
Archive, a digital library of Internet sites, documents and cultural
artefacts donated by a variety of official and unofficial sources, has
encouraged an environment of sharing and free access for educational
purposes. 7 Many of those who upload items to the Internet Archive are
fans.
It can be argued that the principle of free access to copyrighted material

for non-profit purposes is counter-cultural, in that it bypasses the
commercial imperatives of the media industries. This argument is
controversial when it comes to the unauthorised distribution on the
Internet of work on which creators depend for their livelihood, and
procedures have been developed to address such issues, among them
Creative Commons licenses, the ‘fair use’ legal defence and disclaimers
that state where ownership resides or that no infringement of copyright is
intended. 8 These do not prevent copyright violations, which remain a
3 / 25
Frames
contested Cinema Journal
area, but they contribute to an ethos of responsible sharing and
re-use of media for education and research. Where official archives are
often constrained by copyright, selection criteria, professional protocols
and commercial restrictions, personal collections published online offer
free access to content that would otherwise be difficult to obtain.It is self-
evident that personally authored fan sites are no match for the
professional skills and expertise offered by official archives. Their
collections and cataloguing methods are not regulated nor subject to
review by qualified archivists, and though they may be extensive, they are
rarely complete. However, official collections are also partial and, in the
context of financial cutbacks, their ability to make new acquisitions,
update existing ones, and manage records and access has come under
pressure.
Over the last five years or so, my research methods have changed:
whereas I used to make use of a limited number of core specialist
institutions, increasingly I consult a variety of official and unofficial
resources, many of which are online. The time I spend in physical
libraries and archives has diminished, though their materials and services
remain authoritative. Rather than being primary, they are part of a de-
centred network of expert and lay locations in which I find the
information I need. This has increased the time I devote to assessing the
value and verifiability of sources through checking references, which
enables me to access a broader field of relevant cross-disciplinary
scholarship than was previously possible.Personal fan websites would not
normally be considered a reliable research resource, partly because fans
engage with popular culture and other fans rather than academic
scholars, and partly because fan discourse is considered to be an object
of critical study rather than as offering a body of knowledge and
expertise. As noted, there is also an element of resistance to the
perceived ‘reverence’ with which fans approach their subject. In my case,
I find myself using fan websites more and more as repositories of images
and documents pertaining to my research that are not available in official
archives. While official moving image collections are indispensable
sources of historical documentation and media relating to classic cinema,
when it comes to the contemporary period, coverage can be patchy and
selection is informed by national priorities. Fan websites also emerge
from national contexts, but the widespread availability of popular images
and publications in digital form allows them, language barriers
permitting, to redistribute media from outside their provenance. Each
website is focused on a specific topic or personality, making it a kind of
‘special collection’ of materials on that subject.
Four case studies
John Fiske and others have written extensively about the productivity of
4 / 25
Frames Cinema
fans. Fiske makesJournal
the point that fandom can be seen as a form of cultural
labour that fills the gaps left by legitimate culture. 9 I want to look in
more detail at four fan websites to explore the kinds of work and
expertise involved, the relationship of the authors to their subject and to
other fans, the reasons they undertake the task of creating a fan site and
the cultural value of their output. I have used three of the websites for
research purposes myself, the fourth was recommended by a colleague. I
contacted the authors, who all happen to be women, with a series of
questions about their sites; in the case of the one who did not reply in
time, my observations are based on my experience of using the site. 10 I
chose these particular sites because they are examples of sophisticated
fan production and engagement with popular media that follow certain
ethical principles; they are all motivated by what McDonald calls the
‘labour of love’ (that is, they are not made for commercial profit, though
they may enable the acquisition of other kinds of capital). 11
Two of the websites are devoted to Australian film-maker Baz Luhrmann

(Baz the Great! [BG] and Australia – A Baz Luhrmann Film [AUS], both
authored by Australian fans), and two are focused on stars (Nicole’s
Magic [NM]and Tout sur Deneuve [CD], dedicated to Nicole Kidman and
Catherine Deneuve respectively). The authors do not have connections to
official sources, nor official recognition from their subject (the latter can
be a source of disappointment). They gather their information from the
Internet and other fans, and contribute a significant amount of material
from their personal collections of print media, photographs and
memorabilia. This can be a costly and labour-intensive activity, both in
terms of acquiring originals or photocopies and time spent in scanning
and publishing, or verifying sources and contacting creators where
necessary. Authors of fan websites are not professional designers, and
the effort and creativity involved in designing the site, in organising
material and providing navigational tools is substantial. In the case of
those sites hosted by a web server, the owner usually pays an annual fee
for the assigned space and service, or is required to accept
advertisements on the site. 12 The level of commitment is very high, and
the investment in producing an authoritative resource considerable.
In the absence of official approval, the response of the fan community is

essential, both as support for the enterprise and as a form of quality
control. Some of the sites have forums and guest books through which
other fans communicate opinions, questions, information and media.
Fielding such response, and other kinds of enquiries generated by the
site, represents an important part of the owner’s work. One site (BG) is
more individual and depends solely on the author for editorial content.
While all of them are dedicated to promoting their subject, and some of
the language they use reflects that desire, they feature different kinds
and levels of discourse. The welcome page usually carries a mission
5 / 25
Frames
statement Cinema Journal
extolling the virtues of their subject, sometimes elaborated on
in a separate ‘About’ page. Other pages home in on specific areas such as
biography, filmography, press response, media, featured works, photo
galleries, links to other resources, news, archive of entries and contact
information. All carry a disclaimer stating that the site is unofficial and
not for profit, and that copyright infringement is not intended and will be
corrected.The disclaimers vary in their legal content, from a simple
statement (BG and CD) to more detailed explications (AUS). NM, which is
hosted by the Fan Sites Network, refers the visitor to a separate page
that lays out the terms of its compliance with the US Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (1998). 13
Although the content of these sites is not moderated by a third party, they
are governed by terms and conditions that can be rigorous and, as noted,
in some cases by editorial input from other fans. The site design remains
within the author’s remit, but some hosts make stipulations as to quality
and/or provide design facilities. Fiske observes that many fan sites
emulate the high production values of commercial sites, albeit on reduced
resources. 14 The design of AUS and NM approaches professional
standards, but even when the design appears more basic and ‘hand-
made’, construction, navigation tools and content are crafted with care in
order to provide a reliable, accessible and respected information service.
While these fan sites operate outside institutional borders, like many
unofficial online resources they are regulated by external protocols and
internal etiquette fashioned by fan communities. All the sites name their
authors and offer email contact. McDonald claims that sites that mask
their origins have more authority because their content appears objective
6 / 25
Frames Cinema
rather than Journalmotivated. 15 However, anonymous production on
personally
the web is often viewed with suspicion because provenance cannot be
verified.
Even though online identities may be fictitious, the establishment of an

authorial voice for the site enhances its distinctive qualities and
establishes a kind of brand for it. Crucially, it also differentiates it from
official sites, which are not individually authored, though provenance is
asserted through copyright. In a way, revealing their authorship enables
fan site owners to reclaim the star, director or film from official
institutions, which can scarcely be seen as objective themselves, by
transporting their products into a personal space for commentary,
analysis and elaboration. Since the aim of the project is to honour their
chosen subject, adverse criticism is carefully excluded, and fan
contributions to interactive forums generally, though not always, express
their admiration. Exploitative content, such as risqué or invasive
material, is avoided. The subjective nature of the sites is balanced by
such ethical concerns, and by a commitment to honesty and respect for
their subject, which distinguishes them from celebrity gossip
publications.
Personal authorship may also signal a desire for connection with the
site’s subject. Fan sites are passion projects that are usually
unrecognised by the objects of their affections or their agencies.
Although stars and film-makers acknowledge their fans en masse, fans
themselves are perceived as anonymous figures rather than as
individuals. An authored fan site allows the owner to identify themselves
and their appreciation to the person(s) concerned in the hope of gaining
their approval. Unfortunately, this is rarely forthcoming and the response
to the efforts made by fan sites to promote their subject’s life and work
ranges from indifference to hostility. 16 Fan site owners do not undertake
their projects for such approval, but their desire for recognition from the
individuals to whom they dedicate their lives influences site content. It
encourages the exclusion of negative data, but it also induces owners to
produce high-quality material. AUS, for example, made an editorial
decision to confine what she referred to as ‘fan-girl gushing’ to the forum
and to maintain a balanced perspective on the main site. CD focuses on
Deneuve’s career, including only verifiable documents and images and
published interviews with Deneuve herself. The actress’s private life is off-
limits.
Although the respectful tone is consistent, the style and nature of site
content varies according to author. All the sites aim to provide a
centralised, easy-to-access, regularly updated source of news and
information about their subject, but some contain more personal
commentary. BG’s sidebar features pages about key Luhrmann works
7 / 25
Frames Cinema
that present Journal
narrative descriptions written by the site owner based on
other sources. Although not all material is referenced here, and some of it
appears to be taken from press releases, the pages contain links to more
detailed information and to reviews by the author. When press reports
and photographs are posted, the sources are given. BG is clearly
compiled and authored by an individual fan; it does not include a forum
(though it does invite email contact) and it presents a personal view of its
subject through detailed documentation and interpretation of material. It
provides a wealth of current and past information at the same time as
leading visitors to original online sources, or providing transcripts. Its
authority lies in the dedication and attention to detail with which the
owner approaches her task.
When I was researching my book about Baz Luhrmann in 2005, BG was

an invaluable source of biographical information and links to Australian
media coverage. UK archives are strong on domestic and US print media;
the Australian Film Institute research library in Melbourne has a
comprehensive collection of Australian and US press response; at the
time, none of these collections was digitised. The situation was
complicated by two issues: horizontal integration in the contemporary
communications industries, which means that coverage is spread across
different media outlets, and the fact that Luhrmann’s work crosses over
between film, theatre, publishing, music, art, fashion, television,
commercials and music videos. Although the official archives carry
material from some non-film areas, they privilege film-related items. BG’s
compendium of online and other resources is gathered from diverse
8 / 25
Frames
locationsCinema Journal
and media, organised into accessible categories that include an
extensive news archive.
AUS, to which BG’s author contributed, provides a similar treasure trove

of items relating to Luhrmann’s historical epic Australia (2008).
Luhrmann’s films generate a maelstrom of media attention from the early
stages of pre-production to reception, and one of the research challenges
I faced was the retrieval of the vast amount of public and personal
material scattered across multiple sites, from YouTube and online press
outlets to television, podcasts, radio and glossy lifestyle monthlies. AUS
was set up in 2006 and documented in minute detail the film’s progress
via world-wide, English-language media response and commentary,
magazines, audio files, photographs, fan videos and production notes,
through to completion and post-release events. It encouraged interaction
through a forum and guest book, where a range of opinions, positive and
negative, appeared. Fans contributed information, media and, when the
amount of traffic threatened to close the site, financial support. AUS
remains online as an archival resource, at the owner’s expense.
Despite being individually authored and maintained, AUS was partly

created by the fan community. Its professional design and the editorial
style and tone often caused it to be mistaken for an official website. The
intention was to promote the film, but the site’s endeavours in this regard
produced an archive of the promotional material generated by the film
that was (and continues to be) of cultural value to researchers and others
outside the fan community for which it was primarily intended. While
editorial policy tended to avoid the controversy and negative critical
response that surrounded Australia, the collation of diverse items in a
single location delivered free access to material beyond the remit of
official archives. Although fan productivity was not directly critical or
counter-cultural (indeed, it echoed institutional promotional language), it
created an unsanctioned discursive arena that challenged the control of
official agencies over how images and texts relating to media
commodities are circulated and consumed.
9 / 25
This is perhaps why official agencies regard fan activity with suspicion.
Fan websites often look authorised, even though they operate
independently. Fans are collectors: the materials and artefacts they
Frames
gather andCinema Journal
circulate are harvested from regular (regulated) channels into
a parallel system where alternative ideas about ownership and sharing
prevail. For example, NM, like AUS, has the appearance of a professional
website. It carries advertising, and has links to official Nicole Kidman
sites. It was set up in 2002 after Kidman’s success in Moulin Rouge!
(2001) and has grown into a large database with a huge following. Its
tone is effusive and entirely positive, and the owner credits fellow Kidman
fans with help in maintaining the project over ten years. It publishes
terms and conditions for use of site content, a privacy policy and a
copyright disclaimer that links to a statement about the legal rights of
fans.
NM is rich in information about the star, from biographical and

filmography details to song lyrics, charity work, character quotes and
news archives dating back to 2003. The content is multimedia, featuring
screen captures, HQ images, video and audio files and collections of
wallpapers, screensavers, gifs, icons and art by fans. It also has an
interactive section where fans contribute their thoughts and experiences,
and a forum. A page devoted to the actress’s sartorial style traces her
journey in images from Australian tomboy to glamorous superstar, while
another features accolades won by NM from the fan website community.
Visitors are encouraged to complete a survey and suggest ways of
improving the site. NM is complex in design and entails substantial
editorial management by the owner. The photo gallery alone is a
collection of more than 3,000 albums containing thousands of scans from
the 1980s to the present, displayed in HQ. Images are filed under
provenance and catalogued according to size, date added and viewer
ratings, with the name of the person contributing the scan listed.
When I was working on my book about Nicole Kidman, for which I was
unable to carry out research in Australia, the photo gallery and library of
magazine, online and press articles, interviews and transcripts gave me
access to rare and otherwise unobtainable items collected by fans. Some
of this material led me to other sources, official and unofficial, where I
was able to retrieve valuable information. Scans and transcripts from
magazine articles appearing on another Kidman fan site, Nicole Kidman
United, were also a vital resource. The vast amount of material gathered
and organised by NM is also a feature of CD, which aims to document
Catherine Deneuve’s career in as much detail as possible (it has around
700 pages). Designed by the site owner, it is hosted by Free.fr, a free
website hosting service available only in France, and carries minimal
advertising.
The author maintains a discreet distance, including only published

interviews with Deneuve and some of the directors and actors with whom
she has worked. The pages devoted to her personal life rely on what the
10 / 25
Frames Cinema
actress and Journal
those close to her have publicly said. The professional skill
with which CD’s collection of documents, photographs, audio recordings
and media clips is compiled and presented gives it the appearance of a
complete archival record (though it is not), and it resembles an official
archive site. Indeed, it has received public recognition in the press and
from the Cinémathèque Française. 17 It publishes links to resources about
Deneuve and other actresses, and to cinema databases such as IMDb. It
is intended as a reference site for fans and it encourages interaction; it
includes a guest book, fan art, screen savers and wallpapers. It reaches a
broad international audience, with fifty per cent of site traffic coming
from outside France.
All these sites are ‘labours of love’ on behalf of their subject and the fan
community. They use the search and retrieve mechanisms of new
technologies to gather and store items from official and unofficial
sources, producing multimedia memory banks that exist alongside
legitimate operations. They cannot guarantee the survival of all the
material they publish: links can be taken down, websites disappear and
media clips and images are sometimes removed. They are also vulnerable
to closure by their hosts, which puts their digital collections at risk. 18 But
their editorial content, scans and transcripts are cultural resources that
supplement and exceed those offered by traditional, sanctioned sources.
They represent the best of fan activity on the web, and they have some
features in common with official archives: for example, the drive to
collect and preserve historical material related to their subject and to
make it freely available to others. Reverence and the desire to promote
are not exclusive to personal fan sites; although it is rarely
11 / 25
Frames Cinemathey
acknowledged, Journal
are evident in academic scholarship and moving
image culture generally, and influence teaching and learning
methodologies as well as journalistic discourses.
At its best, academia is motivated by the sharing philosophy that inspires

fans and other independent digital producers. Such convergences have
already had an impact on the way scholars perceive fans; they could also
play a part in reconfiguring moving image education to take on board non-
hegemonic participatory models in which traditional boundaries between
expert and lay knowledge are re-evaluated. This would involve a
reassessment of pedagogic methods and research training to incorporate
a non-defensive approach that consciously acknowledges competing,
sometimes incompatible, procedures, discourses and standards of value.
Tom O’Regan characterises this kind of cultural practice as pluralist
rather than relativist, quoting Isaiah Berlin to the effect that no single
method can produce a correct answer — rather, multiple methods exist
that produce several correct answers, none of which coalesce into a
coherent, systematic whole. 19 In the context of the erosion of traditional
expert elites and their presumed access to the ‘truth’ referred to by
Walsh, such radical pluralism appears particularly relevant. 20
With thanks to Vanessa (BG), Kate (AUS) and Isabelle (CD).
For the appendix with interviews with fan site owners click here.
Bibliography:
Fiske, John. “The Cultural Economy of Fandom.” In The Adoring

Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, edited by Lisa A. Lewis, 30-49.
London: Routledge, 1992.
Grossberg, Lawrence. “Is There a Fan in the House? The Affective

Sensibility of Fandom.” In The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and
Popular Media, edited by Lisa A. Lewis, 50-65. London: Routledge, 1992.
Hargreaves, Ian. Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property

and Growth. May, 2011.Accessed May 16, 2012.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf.
Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory

Culture. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Jenkins, Henry. “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence.” International

Journal of Cultural Studies 7:1 (2004): 33-43.
Johnston, Leslie. “Jason Scott, Rogue Archivist.” The Signal: Digital

12 / 25
Frames Cinema
Preservation. JournalApril 17, 2012.
Accessed
http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/02/jason-scott-rogue-
archivist/.
McDonald, Paul. “Stars in the Online Universe: Promotion, Nudity,

Reverence.” In Contemporary Hollywood Stardom, edited by Thomas
Austin and Martin Barker, 29-44. London: Arnold, 2003.
Miller, Toby. “A View from a Fossil: The New Economy, Creativity and
Consumption – Two or Three Things I Don’t Believe In.” International
Journal of Cultural Studies 7:1 (2004): 55-65.
O’Regan, Tom. Australian National Cinema. London: Routledge, 1996.
Walsh, Peter. “That Withered Paradigm: The Web, the Expert, and the
Information Hegemony.” In Democracy and New Media, edited by Henry
Jenkins and David Thorburn, 365-72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
Wikipedia Contributors. “Stop Online Piracy Act.” Wikipedia, the Free

Encyclopedia. Accessed June 26, 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act.
Wiltse, Ed. “Fans, Geeks and Nerds, and the Politics of Online
Communities.” Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association Fifth
Annual Convention 5 (2004), edited by Arthur W. Hunt III. Accessed April
3, 2012. http://www.media-
ecology.org/publications/MEA_proceedings/v5/index.html.
Copyright:
Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital? 2012-07-02, this article © Pam Cook. This
article has been blind peer-reviewed.
Appendix: Q&A with fan site owners

Responses to questionnaire sent to fan site owners:
AUS:
1. When and why did you first set up the site?
I ran/run a fairly successful Moulin Rouge! message board back in the

day and was heavily into that film by Baz — of course I had enjoyed his
previous works also but this was my first foray into expressing that
interest. Ever since Moulin Rouge! we’d keenly awaited Baz Luhrmann’s
13 / 25
next masterpiece. We all thought it would be Alexander, which is where
the Baz the Great! site by another friend and user of our forum got their
name, but that wasn’t to be. Instead Baz and CM [Catherine Martin]
moved on to another of their several ‘epic’ ideas, which happened to be
Australia. The site was officially set up on November 23, 2006 (… has it
been that long!?! ) because I was waiting for Baz to release the name of
the film before buying a domain … in actual fact we had a thread and
then a subsection to the Moulin Rouge! forum set up for the film well
before this time. Consider how highly anticipated the film was with the
rest of the world and then triple it for us fans. I set up the site because it
was a natural progression. I’ve been dabbling in fan sites for years and
my running of the Moulin Rouge! forum had escalated to a reasonably
high scale (I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to e-interview Baz
Luhrmann) so given the amount of interest I had for the film, it seemed
only logical to pool that gathered knowledge/information on a website in
one easy-to-read location from which others could benefit.
2. How many hours a week do you spend on updating the site?
You just can’t begin to quantify the time you give to something like this,
but … A LOT. Particularly during the height of the film and pre/post
release, I gave the site a crazy amount of attention – hours per day. Most
people don’t realise the time and effort that goes in to maintaining a
quality website, particularly where a forum is attached. It really does take
true passion, because it requires a lot of resources and time that you’re
not getting paid for, so you have to be driven by something other than
money or even official feedback in some instances, because you generally
get neither. For me a website has to be a labour of love … definitely
plenty of labour, but plenty of love for what you’re doing – both in
technical aspect and content. It certainly isn’t something you get into
because you want glory, perks or praise; you will almost always be let
down in that regard. I believe that it has to be about personal passion.
The site is no longer updated because there is really no more news to be
had on this particular film and I have my efforts focused on new fan sites
and endeavours at present
(e.g. http://www.spirited-tv.net/and
http://forum.placeboworld.co.uk/forum/). However, I like to leave my old
websites up as an archive that many people still visit and I am
continuously getting emails and comments from people who have just
seen the film or people wanting to research certain aspects or get in
contact with X, Y or Z. I check my email less frequently, but do like to still
help and re-direct enquiries where I can.
3. How do you find the content you post?
Even in the last six years Internet searching has improved, but Google
14 / 25
Frames Cinema
was obviously Journal
always a wonderful tool. I and others would actively search
daily, sometimes more, for any breaking news or information. Having the
forum was most definitely an invaluable source. It meant we had a
collective group of eyes and ears all eagerly awaiting new information.
Sometimes they would hear word via other forums (Hugh
[Jackman]/Nicole [Kidman] etc.) and come to share with us, particularly
once they knew I was running the site they would be eager to assist. That
shared pool of information, be it something small or large is quite
amazing. If the content was not online it was good to have the heads-up
about an article or a magazine. At my own expense I purchased a huge
wealth of magazines in hard copy specifically for the purpose of scanning
in to the gallery of the site, just so that information could be documented
and shared with others along for the journey. I did realise that I was
lucky being located in Australia as a lot of Luhrmann/Hugh/Nicole fans
were not; so they were quite reliant on myself and the site for
information.
4. Do you exclude anything? I’m interested here in your selection

criteria.
I don’t recall specifically coming across an article or content and

thinking, ‘No, that does not belong on my site’. Personally, I am not a fan
of invasive paparazzi shots where children are involved, but I don’t think
any such content was around or relevant at the time the site was being
made. Most press stuff involving Hugh and his children was quite openly
given to the press about his son’s relation with the locals and photos were
officially published, so that was fine. There was a lot of backlash about
the movie and comments that Nicole Kidman had made about not wanting
to watch it were taken out of context; so rather than publishing such
articles I did write some opinion pieces on those issues by highlighting
the actual truth or opposite positions by using other facts. I did not post
significant spoilers, particularly regarding the ending of the film, because
I wanted to encourage people to see the film in theatres. The benefit of
having a forum is that we could discuss spoilers, articles, gossip and
whatnot, warts and all … no holds barred, but the site did not need that.
The site didn’t need to update with every news report because we
covered it on the forum, but the important details were always extracted
for the site. It was to be informative, about filming dates, latest
photographs etc. A source for those wanting crisp detail without having
to sift through in depth dissection and chatter.
5. What role does the fan community play in building what appears
on the site?
As I have alluded, a great deal of assistance was provided by many fans

and a few key supporters in particular. I was lucky that I could source a
15 / 25
Frames Cinema
lot of content Journal
myself as an Australian Baz fan, but it was good to have
Hugh and Nicole fans sharing their resources too. In the early days we
had a lot of excited locals scanning their regional newspapers, taking
photographs of locations and giving on the ground reports, which was
quite exclusive content. It is great the wealth of information you can
gather from a variety of sources when you have that communal/global
atmosphere and I was always very appreciative of those who took the
time to email or contact me with contributions. I enjoy that side of
making websites, that’s part of the reason why I run them, that fan
interaction. People enjoy the sense of accomplishment and shared
endeavour when contributing and I appreciate their assistance and
companionship along for the journey. It really is much duller when you’re
continuously the sole source of information that just stands and delivers.
I might also add that given the popularity of the site, my web host
threatened to, and did take the site down at several stages. Mere days
before the film was released traffic was so high that I was in a situation
where I had no choice but to pay a massive, crippling fee to transfer my
entire site onto a sever that could handle more traffic, or face the fact
that a site which I had slaved on for years may be offline from the exact
point of time when the actual film was released. Crushed doesn’t begin to
describe the feeling or stress that I was under. Being held at ransom from
my host I went to the fans that had come on the journey with me and they
helped contribute toward funding the site for a brief period of time. So in
a very real way they contributed to the actual site appearing. Mind you,
TodayTonight (a low-brow current affairs news show) had other
ridiculous conspiracy theories as to why my site was offline on the day
before release: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkesvHiWt_U
6. What part does your own experience and memorabilia (photos,

artefacts etc.) play in the site?
This was my first time in following a film through pre- and post-
production to completion and with a Baz film it was quite a large
undertaking. Running the site I did get quite swept up in the collection of
physical memorabilia and digital photographs etc. I never dare quantify
how much money went into magazines, merchandise etc. I bought various
rare (competition) pieces of merchandise from eBay, had some fans send
me regional things such as mini newspapers and stubby holders (beer
holders) that were produced in Bowen during the time of filming.
Magazines were the main contribution towards the site, and that may not
sound like much, but they were generally big, glossy, fashion magazines
from $15-20 each time. As for my personal experience, I was ultimately
extended an invite to the Sydney premiere of Australia. I was able to
utilise this experience for a review of the event and the film. Again, forum
and actual site recollections did vary. The forum could be more casual
16 / 25
Frames Cinema
and intimate Journal
recollections, as I liked to keep the site to detail-based
recounts and information with less ‘fan-girl gushing’ where possible.
7. Do you worry about copyright?
Though I do not work in the field, I am actually a qualified lawyer, so the

issue of copyright, and attribution at the least, was always something of
which I was aware. Basically, I think Bazmark would have been fools to
stop us from uploading photographs that we’d collected as the site was
essentially doing them a massive PR service for free. I was always very
conscious of asking for permission and crediting fans for their work or
scans, those kinds of attributions, believe it or not, tend to cause more
trouble than legal copyright. Where official photographers were involved
we would credit them by name and/or link to their website. There was
one prolific on-location photographer that I had some discussion with
about crediting and he expressed desires on how he would like that to
occur and we were completely fine to work with that. My policy was to
give as much source information and credit where possible, then our
disclaimer made clear that if someone ever took issue with us displaying
their work they could contact us about it and either ask for more specific
credit/watermarking or removal should they desire
(http://www.australiamovie.net/disclaimer/). However we were never put
in this situation.
8. Is your intended audience other fans?
Anyone with an interest in what we were presenting was the target

audience. Basically, fans of the film genre and Baz, Hugh, Nicole. We had
a few (two or three) comments from historians or indigenous members of
the community that the site did not provide sufficient information about
the real backstory to the film. However, very early on the decision was
made not to become a source for that type of information. There are
plenty of other websites where that can be found, and as I am not well
versed in those areas, I felt it would be wrong of me to present myself as
such. Instead, a brief factual history section was provided with external
links elsewhere. The site really was dedicated to the film and film-making
aspects, and not for historians or college students writing papers about
the bombing of Darwin. Basically, I wanted to make an easy-to-digest
source of information about all things ‘Australia – the movie’ and fan
reports reflected that this is what I achieved.
9. Do you aim to provide a complete and accurate historical

record?
The site documented the very early stages of this particular piece of
work. There are photographs that fans submitted of sets being built and
17 / 25
Frames Cinema
scenes being Journal The film-making process is chronicled in quite a
rehearsed.
comprehensive manner. In this regard, I aimed to be as thorough as the
available information allowed. The site stands now as a little time capsule
from that period. And it is good for people who are just discovering the
film via TV or DVD to be able to look through all that information and
early behind-the-scenes documentation. As I type these responses, it is
also nice for me to take a wander down memory lane
(http://www.australiamovie.net/archives/).
10. How would you describe the value of the site?
To me, the process of following a project, becoming so involved and

having those connections and friendships with fellow fans was priceless.
The value and support for the site by other fans is usually what drives you
to work hard in providing a quality website. With all the top-tier enquiries
I was fielding, such as TV and press interview requests for Baz (due to
being mistaken for an official website), I was lucky to eventually develop
a point of contact at Bazmark; however, there was often a lack of official
feedback or recognition for my efforts, which does make you question the
value of your contribution in their eyes. I never work on fan sites to gain
that recognition or support, but it certainly does feed the soul and make
you work harder (again, all for free) if you feel that they are appreciative
of your efforts, rather than being perhaps a hindrance to them. Though
the invite to the premiere in Sydney was a very last-minute thing, I
suppose you could say being extended that courtesy was certainly a token
of their appreciation (a token that they in no way owed me), and that was
a nice culmination of events. I think to this day the site is still of
significant value to Bazmark as I continuously get feedback and mail from
universities, people wanting to contact photographers to purchase photos
etc., and I field those questions as best I can when possible. I note that
the official site came well after my site appeared and disappeared rather
quickly after the film … therefore in regards to this particular film, I think
the fact that I still personally pay to keep that information available to the
public is a show of my appreciation for Baz and the fan community.
Additionally, I worked long and hard to put that body of information
together, and to dismantle it simply because the film and buzz has ended
would be disappointing. Finally, because of the site’s popularity, for
which I was thankful, it honestly did become quite stressful when site
closure and financial issues arose, so I still look back on it with some
mixed feelings. Though I greatly cherish the personal journey I went on
through following the film from start to end, the time, stress and financial
issues were all factors that led me to make an active decision in not
repeating the process with the latest Luhrmann film.
BG:
18 / 25
Frames
1. WhenCinema Journal
and why did you first set up the site?
I created Baz the Great! in November 2002 after falling in love with Baz
Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge!, which to this day remains my favourite movie
of all time. After watching the film, I went searching for information
about Baz on the Internet, and I was very surprised to find no fan sites
dedicated to him. This fact, along with my love of his films, was what
made me decide to create my fan site. As far as I know, Baz the Great! is
still the only fan site on the web dedicated entirely to Baz Luhrmann.
This depends entirely on whether or not Baz is actively working on a film

or other project. Baz spends a lot of time planning, and so during this
time there is little to report. It is only when casting rumours and pre-
production of a project begins that the media starts reporting information
I can then use on my website. During quiet periods, I might update my
site once a month. During busy periods, it may be several times a week.
Each update usually takes me about an hour, depending on the amount of
news to report. But during busy periods I also spend time each day
checking the web for any new information that I think should be added to
my website.
3. How do you find the content you post?
Google News! This is my main source of information. I have absolutely no

official contact with Baz Luhrmann or his production company, Bazmark.
Therefore, I rely entirely on various online media sources for my website
content.

criteria.
I do exclude information that is downright negative. I know that Baz’s

style of movie-making is not liked by everyone, and this is evident in some
of the information that is published when he is working on a project.
Because I run a fan site, I do try and post positive information. However, I
do also post rumours that might not be accurate, such as casting rumours
for a new film, which might turn out to be incorrect. But because I have
no official source to verify my information, some guesswork can be
required.
on the site?
I have found there is a limited Baz Luhrmann fan community on the

19 / 25
Frames
Internet.Cinema Journal
As far as I know, there are no other Baz Luhrmann fan sites on
the web. And, as far as I know, there are no active discussion forums
dedicated to Baz Luhrmann. When Baz makes a new movie, I sometimes
join a couple of discussion forums relating to actors starring in that
movie. I often find that these forum users are also fans of Baz and may
post some related articles. However, between films, I find myself mostly
alone in the pursuit of news and information to post on my site.

When I first created my site, my own experiences and memorabilia played

a significant role. I went to Sydney to visit Fox Studios and to stand
outside the House of Iona (Bazmark’s production base). I took photos and
posted my story on my site. I also visited the Moulin Rouge in Paris, and
again posted photos with my story on my site. I also posted pictures of
the huge amount of memorabilia I obtained from various stores, including
eBay. However, over the years, I have transformed my site into what I
hope is now more of a generalised fan site, featuring less about me
personally, and concentrating instead on the latest Baz related news and
information.
I have never worried about copyright. My site is a fan site, which I believe
helps to promote Bazmark online. I have always had a disclaimer at the
bottom of the front page of my website and I have always presumed that
if Bazmark, or anyone else, ever had a problem with anything I posted on
my site, they would contact me. However, I have never been contacted
about any copyright issues.
Yes. I am obviously a huge fan myself, and the main reason I maintain my
fan site is because I strongly believe that Baz Luhrmann fans should have
access to a centralised source of online information so that his works are
more widely accessible and appreciated across the Internet. I also hope
that people who are not necessarily fans, but have perhaps watched one
of Baz’s films and are curious to find out more, also access my site and
find useful information.

record?
No, not at all. I have no official contacts, therefore my site information

has been gathered from various websites and media sources across the
20 / 25
Frames
Internet.Cinema JournalI have done the best I can with the limited
Quite simply,
material available to me. Also, I don’t expect anyone to visit my site
hoping for a complete and accurate historical record. My site is an
unofficial fan site — this is clearly stated on my front page — and so it
should be clear to visitors that all information has been compiled by a fan,
not anyone official.
Baz the Great! has been an influential online resource for many years and
I believe it has helped to promote Bazmark’s projects over the past
decade. My website averages well over 100 visitors a day, but this
increases to several hundred a day during peak times. However, although
I’ve received lots of positive feedback from fellow fans who appreciate my
dedication, I have not received support from Bazmark. I have to be honest
and say that I have always found this to be disheartening. I believe that
Bazmark are aware of my site, and I hope they appreciate what I’ve been
doing, but I’ve never received an official ‘thank you’. Indeed, it is for this
very reason that, shortly after the release of Baz’s next film, I plan to
close down my fan site. Ten years and no official recognition have made
me conclude that, unfortunately, perhaps it is time for me to move on.
Addendum:
Is your site hosted by a server that charges a fee?
Yes, unless you don’t mind your fan site being covered with
advertisements, there is usually a fee when hosting a fan site on a server.
I pay around US$40 a year for an assigned amount of space and to
keep my site ad-free. You also need to buy the rights to use a particular
website address. When I tried to buy bazthegreat.com, it was already
taken, so I bought bazthegreatsite.com instead, and I pay about US$15 a
year to keep this address.
CD [my translation from French]:
1. When and why did you first set up the site?
I created the site in late 2001 to honour the career of Catherine Deneuve,
of whom I was a big fan since my teens, and to share all documents
(including interviews) that I had stored over the years.
Currently, I have not updated the site for one year. When I was active, I
spent about one hour per week.
21 / 25
Frames
3. How Cinema Journal
do you find the content you post?
I had stored a number of magazines as they became available. I also
bought some old magazines in the film flea markets, and I made
photocopies of articles in the National Library of France. For news, I
found the information in the press and on the Internet.

criteria.
I wanted to totally exclude her private life. This is why I only publish
things that Catherine Deneuve has herself said (in interviews), or photos
from public events where photographers are accredited.
on the site?
The community has not played a major role in building the site, except for
many messages of encouragement that make me very happy. I
nevertheless have relied on fans for:
– Translation of the editorial into 20 languages (now abandoned).
– Screenshots of movies.
– Some comments in the guestbook.

My personal experience does not appear on the site. In particular, I have

not published any of the many photos I took myself of Catherine Deneuve.
I publish all items with complete references. For photos, I publish them in
very small size (600 pixels) and I withdraw any picture if the author
expresses his disapproval (it happened once). For news photos, I often
rely on photographs taken by professional photographers. I do not
generate any income from the site, and I do not use the content for
commercial purposes.
I have no particular target, with no commercial intent. I seek to please

the fans, including foreigners (50% of site traffic), and I also thought to
22 / 25
please Catherine Deneuve (but I learned that this is not the case) by
giving her a respectful tribute.

record?
I planned to make a reference site on the career of Catherine Deneuve. I

have not space to recount her life and I do not wish to because that is
private and belongs to her. There is a certain amount of information I
have that does not appear on the site. I no longer publish articles that are
not interviews with Catherine Deneuve, and that may reveal things that
she does not want made public.
I think the value of the site lies in its completeness and also in its rigour
(verification, citing sources, etc.). And in its intention to be honest and
respectful. Some developers have said they visited my site before writing
a scenario they wanted to propose to Catherine Deneuve. Journalists and
biographers have also used it for reference.
I designed the site myself (it took me about nine months, devoting 15
hours a week, mainly to scan articles and photos). I stopped the
undertaking due to lack of time, but mostly because the very negative
reactions of Catherine Deneuve (she told me quite violently that she did
not want to be talked about on the Internet!) hurt me and demotivated
me. But I will soon do an update.
Copyright:
Frames # 1 Film and Moving Image Studies Re-Born Digital? 2012-07-02,

this article © Pam Cook
Notes:
1. For example, Henry Jenkins, “The Cultural Logic of Media

Convergence,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 7:1
(2004): 33-43, versus the more pessimistic critique by Toby Miller
in the same issue, “A View from a Fossil: The New Economy,
Creativity and Consumption – Two or Three Things I Don’t Believe
In’: 55-65. ↩
2. Peter Walsh, “That Withered Paradigm: The Web, the Expert, and
the Information Hegemony,” in Democracy and New Media, eds
Henry Jenkins and David Thorburn (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2004),365-72. ↩
3. See Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org,
23 / 25
Framesaccessed
Cinema Journal
April 3, 2012. ↩
4. See Henry Jenkins, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and
Participatory Culture (New York: Routledge, 1992). ↩
5. See Lawrence Grossberg, “Is There a Fan in the House? The
Affective Sensibility of Fandom,” in The Adoring Audience: Fan
Culture and Popular Media, ed. Lisa A. Lewis (London: Routledge,
1992), 50-65. Also Ed Wiltse, “Fans, Geeks and Nerds, and the
Politics of Online Communities,” Proceedings of the Media
Ecology Association Fifth Annual Convention 5 (2004), ed. Arthur
W. Hunt III, accessed April 3,
2012, http://www.media-
ecology.org/publications/MEA_proceedings/v5/index.html. ↩
6. Paul McDonald, “Stars in the Online Universe: Promotion, Nudity,
Reverence,” in Contemporary Hollywood Stardom, eds Thomas
Austin and Martin Barker (London: Arnold, 2003), 39, 41. ↩
7. See Internet Archive website, accessed April 4,
2012, http://archive.org/about/about.php. ↩
8. At the time of writing, proposed anti-piracy legislation (SOPA) in
the US has stalled (see “Stop Online Piracy Act,” Wikipedia, the
Free Encyclopedia, accessed June 26,
2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act), while
in the UK an independent review of copyright legislation has
recommended legalising copying for personal and non-commercial
use (see Ian Hargreaves, “Digital Opportunity: A Review of
Intellectual Property and Growth,” accessed May 16,
2012, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf. ↩
9. John Fiske, “The Cultural Economy of Fandom,” in The Adoring
Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. Lisa A. Lewis
(London: Routledge, 1992), 33. ↩
10. For questions and responses, see Appendix. ↩
11. McDonald, “Stars in the Online Universe,” 38. ↩
12. Terms and conditions vary according to host. In some cases,
authors can pay an additional fee to keep their site advertisement-
free. They may also buy their website address and pay an annual
fee to keep it. The owner of BG told me that she pays around
US$55 per year. The guidelines for NM’s host, the Fan Sites
Network, which are strict, state that hosting is free, as long as site
owners are prepared to accept ads: accessed April 11,
2012, http://fan-sites.org/get-hosted/rulesregulations/. NM
features a PayPal button through which visitors can make
donations. ↩
13. Fan Sites Network website, accessed April 11,
2012, http://fan-sites.org/about/dmca/. ↩
14. Fiske, “The Cultural Economy of Fandom,” 39. ↩
15. McDonald, “Stars in the Online Universe,” 39. ↩
16. The fan site owners I contacted expressed disappointment that
24 / 25
Framesthey
Cinema
haveJournal
never been thanked for their years of hard work, even
though the subjects are aware of the sites. Luhrmann’s company
Bazmark has never formally acknowledged the efforts of BG and
AUS to promote his work, although the owner of AUS received a
last-minute invitation to the film’s Australian premiere. CD
revealed that Catherine Deneuve expressed strong disapproval of
the site and the circulation of material about her on the Internet.
As a result, the site owners have become discouraged and have
questioned whether their endeavours on their subject’s behalf are
worth it. BG has decided to close the site when Luhrmann’s next
film is released, and CD stopped updating her site a year ago
when she learned of Deneuve’s reaction. After the stress and
financial difficulties involved in setting up and maintaining her
site, AUS decided not to repeat the process with Luhrmann’s
latest film. ↩
17. See the site’s ‘Livre d’or’ (guest book) page. ↩
18. The issue of the loss of digital historical records stored in
personal websites is addressed by The Archive Team, an
independent project that provides a hub for permanent storage of
such data. See Leslie Johnston, “Jason Scott, Rogue Archivist,”
The Signal: Digital Preservation, accessed April 17,
2012,http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2012/02/jason-scott-
rogue-archivist/. ↩
19. See Tom O’Regan, Australian National Cinema (London:
Routledge, 1996), 354. ↩
20. Walsh outlines five basic characteristics of the ‘expert paradigm’
in “That Withered Paradigm,” 366-7. ↩
25 / 25
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Labours of Love: in Praise of Fan Websites: by Pam Cook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labours of Love: in Praise of Fan Websites: by Pam Cook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Frames Cinema Journal

Labours of Love: In Praise of Fan Websites

The formation of inclusive, non-hierarchical virtual communities is one of

It can be argued that the principle of free access to copyrighted material

Four case studies

Two of the websites are devoted to Australian film-maker Baz Luhrmann

In the absence of official approval, the response of the fan community is

Even though online identities may be fictitious, the establishment of an

When I was researching my book about Baz Luhrmann in 2005, BG was

AUS, to which BG’s author contributed, provides a similar treasure trove

Despite being individually authored and maintained, AUS was partly

NM is rich in information about the star, from biographical and

The author maintains a discreet distance, including only published

At its best, academia is motivated by the sharing philosophy that inspires

With thanks to Vanessa (BG), Kate (AUS) and Isabelle (CD).

Fiske, John. “The Cultural Economy of Fandom.” In The Adoring

Grossberg, Lawrence. “Is There a Fan in the House? The Affective

Hargreaves, Ian. Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property

Jenkins, Henry. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory

Jenkins, Henry. “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence.” International

Johnston, Leslie. “Jason Scott, Rogue Archivist.” The Signal: Digital

McDonald, Paul. “Stars in the Online Universe: Promotion, Nudity,

O’Regan, Tom. Australian National Cinema. London: Routledge, 1996.

Wikipedia Contributors. “Stop Online Piracy Act.” Wikipedia, the Free

Appendix: Q&A with fan site owners

1. When and why did you first set up the site?

I ran/run a fairly successful Moulin Rouge! message board back in the

2. How many hours a week do you spend on updating the site?

3. How do you find the content you post?

4. Do you exclude anything? I’m interested here in your selection

I don’t recall specifically coming across an article or content and

As I have alluded, a great deal of assistance was provided by many fans

6. What part does your own experience and memorabilia (photos,

7. Do you worry about copyright?

Though I do not work in the field, I am actually a qualified lawyer, so the

8. Is your intended audience other fans?

Anyone with an interest in what we were presenting was the target

9. Do you aim to provide a complete and accurate historical

10. How would you describe the value of the site?

To me, the process of following a project, becoming so involved and

2. How many hours a week do you spend on updating the site?

This depends entirely on whether or not Baz is actively working on a film

3. How do you find the content you post?

Google News! This is my main source of information. I have absolutely no

4. Do you exclude anything? I’m interested here in your selection

I do exclude information that is downright negative. I know that Baz’s

I have found there is a limited Baz Luhrmann fan community on the

6. What part does your own experience and memorabilia (photos,

When I first created my site, my own experiences and memorabilia played

7. Do you worry about copyright?

8. Is your intended audience other fans?

9. Do you aim to provide a complete and accurate historical

No, not at all. I have no official contacts, therefore my site information

10. How would you describe the value of the site?

Is your site hosted by a server that charges a fee?

CD [my translation from French]:

1. When and why did you first set up the site?

2. How many hours a week do you spend on updating the site?

4. Do you exclude anything? I’m interested here in your selection

– Translation of the editorial into 20 languages (now abandoned).

– Some comments in the guestbook.

6. What part does your own experience and memorabilia (photos,

My personal experience does not appear on the site. In particular, I have