SCREEN-L Archives

May 1995, Week 4


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
David Desser <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 22 May 1995 08:11:22 CDT
text/plain (21 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
    Yes PUPPET MASTER opened theatrically; I believe there is even a
sequel.  You might look carefully and see if the film is, in fact, a
"Canadian" productioon (not a slight on my part to Canadians!), which might
explain Sutherland's presence.  We also note that Sutherland has been in
low and moderately budgeted films for YEARS now, some of them pretty good
(e.g. BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER) and some very forgetabble, like one I've
forgotten co-starring Amy Irving--some kind of family psycho thriller.
    As for why an actor would do this sort of film, money is doubtless the
factor.  Yes, it's not a lot but many would rather take some money than no
   I can't at all understand why you might be surprised that a low-budget
genre film would be unable to make "a credible cinematic statement," or why
you think such a statement would by unwitting or unintentional.  Have you
not seen the brilliant ealy films of Joe Dante, John Carpenter, not to
Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese?  I'm sure PUPPET MASTER is no
DARK STAR, but why can it not have great interest in a manner both witting
and intentional?