SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced 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
James Tichenor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sat, 5 Nov 1994 09:11:40 CST
text/plain (27 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>However, there have always been a number of directors before the 1960s who
>were keenly aware of film as an art form and crafted their work accordingly.
>Many happened to be European (Dreyer, Renoir, Eisenstein, etc.) but some
>of those Europeans got to Hollywood and some directors in Hollywood had a
>similar awareness.  The "innocence" of earlier Hollywood films is largely
>due to the commercial pressures of the Hollywood studio-as-insdustry and
>to the self-censorship imposed by the Production Code, but some directors
>(and occasionally writers, producers or stars) found ways to work around
>both sets of limitations.  Fritz Lang, Hitchcock, Preston Sturges, and
>the better work of George Cukor are just a few examples.  By comparison,
>an Oliver Stone or Brian DePalma seems to wallow in obviousness of either
>the declamatory or visual sort.
>--Don Larsson, Mankato State U., MN
Cheers and well taken. I'd agree, but still stand on my belief that
Hollywood's "Golden Age" ended in the early 60s. After that, there
was definite change of style and focus, away from story and onto
"message", whatever that may be.
Thanks Don