SCREEN-L Archives

September 1991


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 8 Sep 1991 20:14:19 PDT
Message of Sun, 8 Sep 1991 18:15:22 EST from <V5486E@TEMPLEVM>
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (19 lines)
     I share Cal Pryluck's fantasy about the American film industry
     paying for its own R&D. The record of the Hollywood industry
     supporting film and television production training, i.e. the
     training of film makers...(dare one say "artists"?) is somewhat
     less encouraging than its record of supporting medical research.
     With the notable exceptions of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg,
     who were most generous to USC, and some others, I'd guess that
     Cedars-Sinai Medical Center has received infinitely more support.
     But the U.S. is hardly alone. The British film and TV industries
     have been very slow to support film and television training, except
     when nudged hard by government. FEMIS, the successor to IDHEC in
     France is wholly government-supported. They do it as an attribute
     of cultural policy. What does one do in a nation without a cultural
     policy? On the other hand, what would a national cultural policy
     look like in the U.S.? Given the obvious problems, maybe things
     as they exist are about as good as they're going to get.
     -Henry Breitrose