SCREEN-L Archives

November 1996, Week 1


Options: Use Proportional 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
"Do not read this line." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:59:24 -0400
text/plain (27 lines)
any number of critical works about sternberg/dietrich/BLONDE VENUS that i've
looked at say--without evidence or attribution--that the "happy" domestic
resolution of that film was imposed on sternberg by the studio, and that his
own conception of the film both culminates in and ends with the image of helen
as the self-directed icon of sexually ambiguous glamour . . . it seems to me
that this would make gibberish of much of the other family/domestic stuff in
the film, including the opening sequence, the question of ned's "sickness /
injury," usw., and i can hardly credit the idea that ALL of that was a studio
imposition on a film that sternberg would have had totally otherwise . . .
. . . so, does anybody know of any [or, failing that, the likely source of
any] authoritative or even relatively reliable evidence as to whether or
or not the ending of the film as released represents ONLY a studio decision
thanks for any leads
mike frank  <[log in to unmask]>
p.s.  BTW, i've often wondered whether the decision [wilder's?] to name the
femme fatale in DOUBLE INDEMNITY [herself just maybe a self-directed icon
of ambiguous sexuality] phyllis DIEDRICKSON is in some way homage to marlene
. . . anybody on the list have any thoughts about this?
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]