Replying this morning to Mike Frank's query of days ago, Cal Pryluck
touched what I think may be the principal nerve of the issue (forgive the
rather disgusting pun).  Some people, even Frank, avers, want to make
things and other don't.  He'd rather be a batting coach than a batter.
 
It's a really fascinating statement, one calculated to get even Desser
back into the argument, now that he's a rested Desser.  Better a batting
coach than a batter, hmn.  ARE there any decent batting coaches who
weren't, once, batters?  HOW would one coach batting if one had never
batted?  I think, at the very best, one would direct a young batter to
very nicely *give the appearance of being a batter*--in short, to look
exactly like a typical "batter" looks when typically "batting."  But look
at the way another Cal--Ripkin, Jr.--bats.  Or the way Mo Vaughn bats.  I
have not yet seen Carlos Perez bat but I think we would need Francis
Coppola to give us a proper image of that, if he bats as he pitches.  I
mean, batting doesn't conform from without, it forms from within.
 
I'm sorry to go on so long.  It's just that I disagree with Mike
intensely, and yet I want him to know my disagreement is entirely
friendly.  You have those who are interested in what it is to MAKE films,
and those who come at it from an audience perspective.  I think when we
talk about criticism we have to decide how much to think about MAKING,
and my call is to think about it as much as I can.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]