SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


Options: Use Monospaced 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]>
Gene Stavis <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:51:12 PDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (16 lines)
<<vile, but probably also culturally
pervasive, attitudes about Asians>>
It seems to me that the second part of your statement somewhat contradicts
the first. There is no justification in judging Griffith by 1994 standards.
If so, Kipling, Dickens, Shakespeare and countless others would have to be
eliminated from serious consideration. The point I was trying to make in
answering the question about Griffith vs. Riefenstahl is that the BULK of
Griffith's contributions have nothing to do with racism, whereas the BULK of
Riefenstahl's did.
I am no apologist for Griffith and I agree with James Card in his new book
"Seductive Cinema" that the man has been given far more credit than he
deserves for innovations. But, an innovator he surely was. And his personal
racism, which is undeniable, does not cancel out his other contributions.
Gene Stavis - School of Visual Arts, NYC