A student of mine who is writing a comparative thesis on the different
treatments of the Madam Butterfly story is desperate to see Cronenberg`s M.
Butterfly.
Does anyone know if this is on video - or has it been in the past ?
Paul Fryer
Senior Lecturer, School of Theatre & Production,
Rose Bruford College.
----
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]
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 20:12:57 -0700
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: UCLA
Subject: Re: Deleuze and Film History--Yet Again
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There's another way of looking at the idea of the
action-image vs. time-image distinction as historical.
I.e., there is a difference between an historical concept
and a descriptive concept which may be embodied in different
historical eras.
Namely, even if Deleuze uses historical markers as points of
reference, this no more means that the concept he's
articulating is historical than the fact that any of the
other kinds of images he analyzes are drawn from specific
national cinemas, directors, movements, and films.
E.g., what Deleuze calls "liquid perception" is either drawn
from or embodied by French poetic realism--it's very hard to
tell which. Might Deleuze have invented the concept had
cinema not formed it? Unlikely. It's from certain films in
a certain period that Deleuze claims he draws this concept.
Yet this concept is not a "theory" of French film in the
1930's. It is something of a description of a certain body
of films, but it is not therefore an historical description,
even if the films which embody the concept are taken from
one particular period.
And so on for all the other concepts Deleuze outlines. His
examples may be historical, national, or generic--the 'small
form' is found in comedy, the 'large form' in the
western--but this does not thereby convert the concepts he
gives, which are abstracted descriptions, into histories,
nations or genres.
That is: the 'small form' may be found in comedy, but one
cannot therefore substitute for a definition of comedy "the
small form." Chaplin may use in the 'small form,' but this
does not make the concept of the 'small form' identical with
the historical period from which Deleuze draws his examples.
The selection of examples may be one of necessity or
convenience, but the concept illustrated using the examples
does not thereby become wholly identical with the examples
cited. (Compare: "When I say the color orange I mean
something like this orange sitting on my desk." "Oh, you
mean when something's on your desk, it's orange!" "No!")
The intellectual problem is similar to that of defining
styles which can also be seen as movements and which are
dominant in given historical periods--e.g., Romanticism,
Modernism, etc. Such terms may be used to refer to periods
or they may be used as shorthand for stylistic markers.
They describe movements which emerge during eras, but once
they are synonymous with a style, they are no longer purely
historical terms.
Deleuze may describe the emergence of a new kind of image in
a certain period, and one might even think of filmmakers who
specialize in this image as a kind of 'movement,' but this
does not mean that the concept is then one that summarizes
an historical event.
The initial assumption that the concept *itself* is
historical produces all the further contradictions which
then need to be 'ironed out.'
Damian Peter Sutton writes:
> I'm still not convinced, Ed, (and other 'listers')
> Deleuze makes himself clear, in the preface to Cinema 1, that
> his job is not a historian's, that point is not in dispute.
Okay, so this much should be clear: the cinema books are
not a history; they are not articulating concepts which are
identical to historical periods.
> Nor is the fact that Deleuze himself muddies his own water by
> analysing Renoir and the time-image after he had placed the
> 'break' in film development at WWII.
But Deleuze doesn't "mudd[y] his own water" because Deleuze
never said he was giving a history. That's *you* who insist
on taking it that way and then become upset when it doesn't
pan out.
> However, he _does_ make the break, and sets this out in the
> preface to Cinema 2.
But what do you mean by "break" here? And, more
importantly, what does Deleuze mean? After WWII it become
more possible to produce the time-image. The action-image
did not disappear. It had not been as possible before to
give such a direct image of time. That is Deleuze's claim.
NOT that the action-image 'takes place' before WWII and the
time-image after.
Each subsequent species of time image is not thereby
synonymous with a period. I.e., the concept of a time-image
is not itself an historical concept.
There may be historical reasons why the time-image become
more possible at this point, but Deleuze does not address
this question because he is not in fact writing a
history--as you wish to make him out to do.
> On the whole, he is not absolutely clear. (most of the
> Hitchcock films his praises as being classic movement-image
> stuff are in the post war period[....]
Actually, Deleuze is quite clear. But when you refuse to
follow what he says, he becomes "not absolutely clear."
>[....] The point I
> would make is that Deleuze contradicts himself, and that this
> should be seen as an opportunity to view his work as
> presenting a history.
But Deleuze doesn't contradict himself in the details while
giving an historical picture. It is you in reading who
refuse to accept his qualification that he is not offering a
history, and it is only then that the text can be seen as
contradictory. It is you in reading who have made the text
contradict itself by refusing to read its patent sense.
>When Deleuze says that he is not going
> to write a film history, I do believe he means that a
> categorical history based on arbitrary points of invention
> and social incident is not his intention. I don't think that
> he would ever have been interested in such a project.
No, Deleuze doesn't want to write that kind of film
history--nor the kind you want to make him write, either.
Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA
----
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]
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 20:32:06 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Alan Bell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: PBS series, "Television"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I hope this is appropriate to ask on this forum. For a survey in electronic
media course, I would like to screen sections of the series "Television"
that PBS ran 8-10 years back. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate
it. Videofinders doesn't have it in its catalog, and PBS Video doesn't seem
to offer it either.
Does anyone know if it is available? I suppose it might not be because it
uses so many clips that the rights problem would be huge.
The series itself actually wasn't very good, but some parts could be
useful, particularly the episode on comedy, which mirrors or presages
cultural changes.
----
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]
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 13:01:19 -0700
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: cameron janati <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: SCREEN-L Digest - 22 Sep 1998 to 24 Sep 1998
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I am in total agreement with Scott's comments concerning why James Ryan
could see the battle at Omaha Beach. However, I felt that this was a
major flaw and to me totally took away from the realism of the film.
-Cameron
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Scott Hutchins wrote:
> My suggestion as to why James Ryan could see the battle in his imagination
> is that he had seen combat, so the Omaha Beach section was based on
> collective memory and the stories he would have heard about the battle.
>
> Scott
>
>
===============================================================================
=
> Scott Andrew Hutchins
>
> http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
>
> Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
>
>
>
> Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours.
>
> Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a
> knack for picking out the interesting bits.
>
> --David Williamson
> _Travelling North_
> Act Two Scene Three
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Damian Peter Sutton wrote:
>
> > I think that it should be pointed out, re: narration and tha
> > first/third person, that the history of cinema is replete
> > with instances of the narration switching from character to
> > character, and to leaving characters completely. This is
> > shown by the continual use of distanciation and estrangement
> > by filmmakers such as Robert Bresson and Jean Luc Godard.
> > In this way, narration is structured in Hollywood films by
> > its presence in others.
> > The argument should not be:
> > Why doesn't Spielberg continue with narration through one
> > individual? Or give us privileged information beyond the
> > character?
> >
> > but:
> >
> > When Spielberg changes narrator, what is the reason for it,
> > and how does this advance the story?
> >
> > It's a semantic point, but every film which comes long like
> > this sparks the same debate, which only goes to show that
> > consistent narrative through a single person is a paradigm
> > established partly by its own absence.
> > If there are inconsistencies in Spielbergs reasons for the
> > change of narrator, (not just the spoken narrator, but the
> > character to which the spectator is sutured) then there
> > should be sufficient grounds for criticism.
> >
> > As to mystery films, Charles Derry's point is apt. If we are
> > to continue to believe that film excites the scopophilia of
> > the spectator, the generalised pleasure of the investigative
> > look, mystery films seem ideal in exciting the audiences
> > curiosity in such a way. The investigative look, however,
> > still exists in other films, and the device of disguise and
> > revelation (what will Ryan be like/act like, when we meet
> > him) is apparent in all films. It should surely follow that
> > the change in narrator not only keeps the audience
> > 'working' to understand, but constantly excites and satiates
> > the scopophilic tendencies through the novelty of
> > points-of-view.
> > Changes in narration like this are best exemplified in
> > sequences themselves, and in particular the
> > shot-reverse-shot.
> > Some S-r-S sequences require the agency of the characters,
> > (with the camera over the shoulder) to develop the
> > continuity. But in sequences in which the plot places another
> > character as the viewer of a spectacle in which the narrator
> > is a part, the logical pattern of shots to satisfy the viewer
> > is the point-of-view shot from the second character.
> > This may sound confusing, so here's an example:
> > In the circus scene in Quo Vadis (LeRoy, 1951), the
> > spectator is asked to follow the narrator Marcus, who is
> > forced to watch his lover be killed in the circus. The shot
> > pattern switches from him, to his lover, to her champion in
> > the circus, and the Emperor. Each holds the narration for
> > the period of their 'viewpoint'. In fact, the sequence is as
> > much about the battle for narration as it is about the fight
> > for life/honour.
> > (This textual analysis is clumsy, I'm afraid, but I'm a
> > little fuzzy)
> >
> > It's wrong to place the narration in one character, because
> > few filmmakers do it themselve, and most provide the
> > narration for the investigative gaze of the spectator to 'act
> > as narrator for themselves'.
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Damian Peter Sutton
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > ----
> > 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]
> >
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama.
>
----
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]
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:26:40 PDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: ryaN MCDONALD <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Ronin
Content-Type: text/plain
Does anyone recommend the new Deniro thriller "Ronin"?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----
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]
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:34:25 PDT
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: ryaN MCDONALD <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Saving Private Ryan
Content-Type: text/plain
I'm doing a report on "Saving Private Ryan". Can anyone give me their
opinions on it? Is it the greatest war movie ever made?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----
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]
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 01:31:01 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Chicago Underground Film Festival <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: http://www.cuff.org
Subject: Re: M. Butterfly.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Paul Fryer wrote:
> A student of mine who is writing a comparative thesis on the different
> treatments of the Madam Butterfly story is desperate to see Cronenberg`s M.
> Butterfly.
> Does anyone know if this is on video - or has it been in the past ?
>
> Paul Fryer
> Senior Lecturer, School of Theatre & Production,
> Rose Bruford College.
>
> ----
> 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]
You should be able to find it at most video stores with a decent selection.
If you have a hard time try Kim's in NYC, Facets or Earwax in Chicago, or
Vidiots in San Francisco. Cronenberg's M. Butterfly is considered by most to
be an unsuccessful adaptation and I would agree (I'm a big fan of his other
works especially Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch and Crash).
Bryan Wendorf
Festival Director
Chicago Underground Film Festival
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:26:03 +0300
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: nezih <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: new web page
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There is a new web page on Turkish cinema with related links. The URL
is:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/3492/
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:51:55 +0100
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Damian Peter Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: SCREEN-L Digest - 28 Sep 1998 to 29 Sep 1998
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:17:28 -0400 Joshua Redmond <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Charles Derry, Professor of Film, Department of Theatre Arts, Wright
> State University wrote:
>
> Why does an American university use British spelling?
>
> > ... I often find the PR machines of Hollywood peculiarly offensive,
> > selling and hyping the worst components of their own films, diminishing
> > that which is interesting and unique, in favor of highlighting the
> > easiest sale.
>
> That seems like an easy statement for one who hasn't risked millions on
> a film.
>
> > When Spielberg was hoping for an academy award for Schindler's List, he
> > gave interviews in which he widely announced that he could never again go
> > back to making a film like Jurassic Park. After he got his Academy award,
> > presto, he decided to make a Jurassic Park sequel and out comes The Lost
> > World. If Spielberg was himself disingenuous, must we now see this
> > insincerity in Schindler's List itself?
>
> Why would one assume that Spielberg spoke dishonestly? He is entitled
> to change his mind.
>
> I've read off-center remarks about SL, but never an implication that
> Spielberg's goal was a ploy to make Academy members feel glorified as
> ambassadors of a humanitarian community.
>
> > ... one of the best professors I ever had once said ... "If we were to
> > discover a letter indicating that Shakespeare thought HAMLET was the best
> > comedy he ever wrote, would that affect our judgment of the work as
> > perhaps the greatest tragedy of all time?" The answer, I think, is no.
>
> True. And one would commit serious misinterpretations if he or she did
> not know that Shakespeare's intention deviated from the theme of the
> play.
>
> > And as hard as it can be, we need to struggle to separate the work from
> > the hype.
>
> Nevertheless the analogy to Shakespeare seems odd.
>
> - Josh
>
> ----
> 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]
I may be a little cynical, and just a little bit suspicious
of the Academy, but I feel I must comment on this. I've
always understood there to be a very lively debate as to the
political nature of the Academy Awards, and that rumours,
substantiated or no, have often abounded as to the expediency
of awarding the prizes. It would be foolish to assume that
Spielbergs SL Oscars were purely motivated politically, and
that the Academy pays special attention to films which make
political statement; that is not my point. But, call me
cynical, I've always suspected that the Academy consider
themselves moral exemplars when the moment suits them, and
even more appropraitely when there is a genuine attempt to
portray a difficult and necessary subject for discussion. I
would very much like it if my suspicions were proven to be
wrong.
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
[log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 11:38:09 +0100
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Damian Peter Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Deleuze and Film History--Yet Again
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
We can continue this "yes, he did", "No, he didn't" argument
separately if you really want to, but in continuing to argue
the point, we've taken the initial query a little to far down
this road. my contention is less of Deleuze's intent, but of
the inescapable permutations of his attempting to narrate a
collection of films into a manageable corpus. Which are
ultimately to be seen as his view on the development of the
medium.
My interest is in the philosophies behind film study, and
Deleuze, Bazin, Kracauer et al. heve all contributed to the
philosophy of film history, whether or not in truth they were
just waxing rhapsodic about their favourite films, or aiming
at a developed theory.
In viewing cinema from the period of the late teens to the
present, we are all film historians in some way, whether
charting an arbitrary, conceptual/philosophical, or
industrial development.
My point about Deleuze is that he misses out so much of the
very early period of cinema, and pre-cinematic vision
cultures, in looking at the development of the movement
image, which is why I consider his view of film history a
little truncated. It might be because he was not as versed in
cinema of attractions, or precinematic forms; or it could be
that he simply didn't think them worth considering. I find
that examining the effect of his ideas on viewing this
history of visual development is fascinating.
It may not have been his intention, but there are many Film
theorists who do in fact follow a lead from him in viewing
cinema history in this way. It's one of many leads which
Deleuze'z writing encourages, and he is not alone as a
philosopher in influencing film histories.
Myself, I find Deleuze's work fascinating in opening up a
view of vision culture based on a 'quest' for the
representation of perception, of both movement and time. I
see Deleuze's ideas, drawn from Bergson, as providing a view
of the development of both vision technologies and vision
cultures from the Rennaissance onwards. If Gilles Deleuze
wasn't particularly interested in this, I'm sure he would
have had no objection to theorists developing his ideas.
It would be interesting to conjecture on Bazin's ideas on
photography and its progression to cinema, but thankfully we
have his writings on photography for just that purpose.
Deleuze himself never developed such a cross-form analysis in
such detail, but that doesn't mean study of his writings
should not open out into these areas.
Finally, two points:
1 The original question was one of epistemiology. After
students of film have been immersed into the dominant
history of film, a la Bordwell Thompson, and so on. Surely
students should be made aware of the philosophies which guide
this history (Marx', Adorno's, Bazin's or whoever) and
philosophies which might be seen to challenge dominant
paradigms. It seems a shame to me that we can't promote this
curiosity and discourse.
2 A point on the subject of paradigms. The dominant paradigm
in film study on the intention of meaning and the unconscious
is the use of psychanalysis, but the dominant (and indeed
accuracy and usefulness) of this approach is constantly
questioned. Are we to rebuke such argument as well?
Sincerely,
Damian
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
[log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:49:32 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Ryan McDonald requests:
> I'm doing a report on "Saving Private Ryan". Can anyone give me their
> opinions on it? Is it the greatest war movie ever made?
Ryan--You seem to be new on the list, because there's been quite a bit
of discussion about this film over the last few weeks. I suggest you
check the SCREEN-L welcome message and access the Archives!
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 09:51:14 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Ronin
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Ryan McDonald requests:
> Does anyone recommend the new Deniro thriller "Ronin"?
Well, I would, but this kind of informal discussion is probably better
suited to CINEMA-L or another film discussion venue. If there's a
specific question or point to ask or make about RONIN, that's another
matter! Again, check your SCREEN-L welcome message!
Don Larsson
----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:57:04 +0100
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Damian Peter Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Reply: Saving Ryan's Privates
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
I think that we should discuss and clarify what we mean by
the term 'realism'.
Just for once.
Gloves off, no holds barred.
Get it all out in the open, because many seem to be
crossing boundaries, and confusing 'realism' with
'verisimilitude', 'neo-realism', 'cinema verite' etc.
(I find it very confusing when this happens, and I'm sure
the confusion is not intended.)
Which films employ 'realism' or are 'realist'?
Can we question the validity of each desciption?
Etc., etc.
That way, every time a film comes along which brings up the
subject, we all have a common frame of reference.
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
[log in to unmask]
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 02:25:04 -0400
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Chris Leidig <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Saving Private Ryan
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It's the biggest piece of tripe masquerading as art this season.
Spielberg has never realized that "pretty images" do not a script make.
Chris
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:26:22 -0500
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Scott Hutchins <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: M. Butterfly.
In-Reply-To: <015401bdef96$ba673220$a33e70c2@allegro>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
This is definitely avaialble on video. Suncoast has it. I know because
my friend Aubrey was obsessed with it because she thought it was the most
overacted film she had ever seen. Aubrey never bought a copy, but she
rented it frequently. I joked around about buying it for her, but she
didn't want me buying anything for her.
Scott
===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
Frances: I've led a pretty boring life compared to yours.
Freddy [the neighbor]: Mine was pretty boring, too. I've just got a
knack for picking out the interesting bits.
--David Williamson
_Travelling North_
Act Two Scene Three
On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Paul Fryer wrote:
> A student of mine who is writing a comparative thesis on the different
> treatments of the Madam Butterfly story is desperate to see Cronenberg`s M.
> Butterfly.
> Does anyone know if this is on video - or has it been in the past ?
>
> Paul Fryer
> Senior Lecturer, School of Theatre & Production,
> Rose Bruford College.
>
> ----
> 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]
>
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 01:41:48 -0400
Reply-To: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Charles Derry, Professor of Film, Department of Theatre Arts,
Wright State University" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: SCREEN-L Digest - 3 Oct 1998 to 5 Oct 1998
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
A question from my students, actually.
My film students have pointed out to me that there are a variety of
national
fraternities/honor societies dedicated to theatre, and were wondering if
anyone knew whether there were any national fraternities/honor societies
dedicated to film studies at the college/university level. They are
interested in starting one here. I
have a vague memory of there being something called DKA at U.S.C., but
what it did and how it functioned I no longer remember. If anyone has any
information about this subject, I would appreciate your contacting
me--potentially off-list.
Thanks.