SCREEN-L Archives

December 1997, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
Antti Selkokari <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:23:42 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Sorry for not being more specific, but haven't nearly all latest films by
James Cameron been at the time of their premieres  "the most expensive
movies ever made?" This needs to be checked, but anyway, isn't it
interesting that Cameron seems to have specialized in making the
highest-budget movies?
 
Another thing is that the makers of "most expensive movies ever made"
usually spend enormous amount of time, effort and money on jaw-dropping
sets and special effects - only to destroy all those sets (think of
Titanic, for example) in a spectacular way. So they want to have their toys
and then they want to break them?
 
So how come the images of destruction are so powerful that both the
filmmakers and the audience feel drawn to them? What is it that fascinates
us when we see a skyscraper/jet/ship/city being destroyed? Is it all just a
need to be subconsciously punished for trying too much with technology?
 
I know this goes a little bit aside from the original query, but I'd like
to hear your thoughts.
 
 
Antti Selkokari
film critic for Aamulehti
P.O. Box 327
33101 Tampere
Finland
[log in to unmask]
 
----
To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2