SCREEN-L Archives

May 1996, Week 5

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:
Jeff Apfel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 29 May 1996 06:29:16 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
mike frank wrote:
 
>from the lack of significant response on either side of the question, i get
>the distinct sense very few on the list share my concern with these matters,
>but maybe they're worth pursuing just a little further
[snip]
>true enough, but the cases are hardly parallel . . . the converstaion about
>BR, whatever one thinks of it, is still motivated by concern about the
>quality and/or meaning of the movie, no matter what factors might be seen as
>responsible for the results we find . . . but the fight over depp had nothing
>whatever to do with art or meaning or value or even with movies as such; it
>concerned nothing more than an actor's decision to pursue his career in one
>way and not another . . . i hardly want to minimize the role of $$$$, only to
>find out why some people care about such matters as these
>
>m
 
I agree with Mike that his question is not really answered by those who fall
back on economics or business issues. It is clear to me at any rate that Mike
is talking about why cinephiles (particularly those who think of themselves as
having aesthetic, professional or sociological interests that take them beyond
the level of *fans*) nonetheless seem to exhibit fan-like behavior, i.e.,
concerning themselves with issues related to the personality or life of *stars*.
 
Maybe the silence that Mike senses, however, comes not only from the faint sense
of embarrassment I suspect he may be devilishly (and perhaps appropriately)
trying to provoke, but also from the fact that, when you really get down to it,
the answer to his question is obvious: people do care about other people, and
this extends, like it or not, to the fan/star relationship.
 
Film is different from lots of other modes of artistic expression in that (at
least in its dominant form, which is narratives about humans) it is inextricably
tied up with human-scale and human-oriented interactions and issues (contrasted,
for example, with much modern visual art which is apparently more *about* paint
than people).
 
So the very success of film--or at least the tremendous success of narrative
film--depends at its core on human sympathy. I suspect, despite our artistic
and spiritual pretensions, we are animal enough in our makeup that it is
impossible to contain human sympathy to the screen, and that its spillover to
non-formal considerations is just inevitable. In trying to get rid of
*celebrity*, one might well be forced to jettison the baby of human sympathy
with the bathwater of odious stardom.
 
Jeff Apfel
 
----
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