SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Gene Stavis <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 15 Jun 1994 10:05:39 PDT
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines)
<<Knowing this information allows us to begin to judge this film not by
our standards, but by the standards applied by viewers at the time of
the film's release, which does seem relevant, and fair to the
director.>>
 
The above is certainly true, but it also highly selective. Shall we remember
"The Last Temptation of Christ" because of the religious right's reactions to
it? Should we remember "Citizen Kane" because of the Hearst press' treatment
of it? As in most things, balance is the answer. Critical thinking requires
balance and judgment. The attackers of Griffith's entire contribution by his
obvious racist sentiments are being polemical, not contemplative. In the case
of Reifenstahl, I believe it can be fairly said that virtually her entire
film career, brief as it was, was dedicated entirely to the glorification of
Nazism.
Gene Stavis -School of Visual Arts, NYC

ATOM RSS1 RSS2