SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Patrick B Bjork <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Oct 1994 23:04:48 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
On Thu, 20 Oct 1994, Murray Pomerance wrote:
 
> A goodly number of truly important filmmakers must be turning in their
> graves to read the density and intensity of this discussion on the
> "brilliant," "seriously important" work of so untried and inexperienced a
> filmmaker.  Now, when does CITIZEN KAND *really end*???
 
Pardon me for asking but could you define the phrase "truly important
filmmakers?" Or at least provide some descriptors to identify the truly
important filmmaker. I ask because _Citizen Kane_, if I'm not
mistaken, was also directed by an "untried and inexperienced" filmmaker
which *over a relatively lengthy period of time* has been elevated to
canonical status. Is it not inconceiveable that such could be the case
with PF?
 
Patrick Bjork
Dept. of English
Bismarck State College
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2