SCREEN-L Archives

January 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Norman N. Holland" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 28 Jan 1994 15:26:54 EST
In-Reply-To:
Message of Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:12 -0600 from <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
Other places you could find Holland's article on Kuleshov are
South Atlantic Quarterly 88.2 (1989):416-442 and in his book
_The Critical I_ (Columbia UP, $9.95).  Best,
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Norman N. Holland       Marston-Milbauer Professor of English     |
| University of Florida   Gainesville FL 32611  Tel: (904) 377-0096 |
| BITNET: nnh@nervm       INTERNET: [log in to unmask]         |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
P.S.  Cal Pryluck might find some solutions to the variable results
in experimental re-runs of Kuleshov if he looked at the effect from
the spectator's point of view.  I.e., salience and speed of montage
vary with who is looking at it and how.  Rather than regard Kul. as
an "effect" as in cause-and-effect, how about thinking of it as
connections spectators make?  Then a lot of the issues become simpler.
                                        Best, NNH

ATOM RSS1 RSS2