SCREEN-L Archives

December 1997, 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:
Peter Lunenfeld <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:40:40 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
>In light of the promotion of "Titanic" as the most expensive movie
>ever made, I've been wondering about earlier films that would also
>qualify (i.e., the most expensive movie ever made, up to that point).
>------------------------------
 
The one thing Titanic brings to mind is a throw away line attributed to
Godard a few years back. When asked about the future of film and of the
commercial cinema in particular, he responded with something along the
lines of "In the future, Hollywood will make one movie a year, and it will
cost a billion dollars" [any solid reference for this quote would be
appreciated, by the way].
 
When I first heard this, I remember thinking that it was brilliant
precisely because of its hyperbolic overstatement. Flash forward to the
ever escalating acounts in the press of the ever escalating costs of
Titanic: the final tally reported as $US 200,000,000. Hollywood is
therefore one fifth of the way to its Godardian destiny. As we slip one
year closer to the next millenium, raise a glass to ten figure budgets
padding out ninety-five cents worth of dialogue.
 
---------------------------------
Peter Lunenfeld  |  Graduate Faculty
Program in Communication & New Media Design
Art Center College of Design | 1700 Lida Street | Pasadena, CA 91103
---------------------------------
 
----
To sign off 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