Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:28:13 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A couple things:
One recent post mentioned Psycho's black and white photography as an
economic strategy for a story that would be "iffy" at the box office. But
I wonder how much the films' color differences-- one in b/w and one
in wonderful, evocative (and a lot of red) color--had to do with their
different receptions. Is it too essentializing to suggest that the b/w
allowed even more audience distanciation from the violent and
perverse events? Remember--Psycho actually "shows" a slashing scene, but
Peeping Tom only suggests the slashing--until Mark does himself in.
On Peeping Tom veering away from the subject matter of Powell's other
films: I haven't watched many of Powell's films, but I'm struck by the
similarities (granted, they aren't on the surface) of Peeping Tom with,
say The Red Shoes: the lengths to which one is willing to go for "art",
the masochistic relationship of the artist to the art work, the
exploration of behind-the-scenes machinations (in the ballet troupe and
the cinema studio), etc. Am I going too far? Maybe.
Susan Crutchfield
University of Michigan
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|
|
|