SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML 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:
Patrick B Bjork <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Oct 1994 22:35:14 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
But, Gene, (and no offense intended) while I agree that some have gone
overboard with QT, we--meaning Shawn, myself, and several others--were
merely analyzing the film which is what we all normally do on this list.
I don't recall any of us alluding, or making comparisons, to other
directors, until a few insisted that QT undergo some kind of canonical
litmus test. Certainly no text exists in isolation, but c'mon, if
everytime we discuss a film we have to hold it up against somebody else's
criteria for what constitutes "appropriate" art, than Jeremy may as well
shut this list down right now.
 
Patrick Bjork, who thinks that those who dislike QT should stop
name-dropping and start supporting their assertions with some cogent
arguments
Bismarck State College
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2