SCREEN-L Archives

May 1996, Week 2

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:
Mark Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 May 1996 09:25:26 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
paul ryersbach writes:
>> If the
>> problems that I have with the film are substantial, could someone please
>> justify for me the epithet of masterwork that this film boasts?
>>
>>                       paul ryersbach
 
Yes, when I read the comment about Blade Runner being a masterwork of
writing, this similar thought did cross my mind.  I don't think that the
screenplay is what makes Blade Runner such an important film.  In fact,
since the screenplay was simply an adaptation and might still have been
better organized, I think the film is successful regardless of the writing.
I am often confused by what Ridley Scott looks for in a film.  I am not
convinced he has the strongest sense of story in any of his films with the
ONE exception of Thelma and Louise (and maybe Alien).  His forte is the
mise en scene and it is that which makes Blade Runner what it is.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark Allen
Xantherboy
 
****XANTHER
****http://www.directnet.com/~xanther/
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2