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 in response to my puzzlement at the contretemps over depp's choice of roles jerry writes: > I'm sure we would all like to look at cinema as a "pure" art form; > unfortunately, it's inextricably bound to economics. Positing film as > "art" or "product" is futile- it's both. Also, the "product" discourse of > film has always played a role on Screen-L, however indirectly. For > example, look at the current dialogue on here concerning the two cuts of > "Blade Runner." There never even would have been two different cuts to > talk about if some studio exec hadn't decided Ridley's original version was > not economically viable. 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 > > ---- > To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L > in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask] > ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]