i've stayed out of the ongoing depp exchange/controversy because
        a.  it seems to me extraoridnary trivial
        b.  i think i've only seen one dpp film ["ed wood"]
        c.  until his recent fame/notoriety i'd never even heard of
depp--knwoing nothing at all about his teeny-bop stauts--so i had no
investment in him or his career
 
BUT . . . i find the length and intermittment intensity of the responses to
the original query almost as astonishing as the original query itself . . .
why in the world should an actor's decision to appear in indie/small/offbeat
films make anyone "sick"? . . . and why does the shape of depp's career [as
opposed to his acting ability or the quality of his performances] matter so
intensly to so many people? . . . the whole episode puzzles me . . .
 
so i'm very curious what others on the list think, NOT about depp or his
films but about the issues raised and traced in the contributions of the
various correspondents . . . what exactly is at stake here? . . . and why?
 
. . . in the meantime maybe i should go back and reread dyer's STARS
 
mike frank
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]