In message <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] writes:
> released LAND AND FREEDOM shows. The danger of dismissing Potter's work
> prior to SINGING DETECTIVE days as formally conservative falls into that
> once supposedly radical (but now hopelesslly fossilized)"classical realist
> narrative" thesis associated with certain aspects of SCREEN
> theory. It is now as dated as platform shoes and bell-bottom jeans.
There is a difference between recognising that Potter was one of many,
and dismissing work. The point about pre SINGING DETECTIVES, was
not that he was any more, or less, 'conservative' at that time, but that
he was doing what others were: or perhaps more cogently, there were others
playing with form in similiar ways.
The whole problem with Potter, and the start point of this overvalued/
overated debate, is that he is seen in many circle as *the* British
playwright on television. He was, in fact, one of many. Many of his
breaks in 'conservative' form, regardless of whether pre or post
Detective, were not breaks with the developments of the time. This
is not to denegrade Potter, but to place him within a a body of
work that is larger than the one with just 'Potter' on the script.
I find it quite interesting, that a casual, and fulflling discussion, has
twice brought on the response that in some way Potter was being denegraded
or criticised. The attitude that to talk about a'great man' in less than
formal terms of absolute praise, is, indeed, another of those problems about
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]