SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994


Options: Use Proportional 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
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
James Tichenor <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 26 Oct 1994 17:01:00 -0400
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (28 lines)
>I still don't
>understand the difference between film-maker and movie-maker put by James
>Tichenor ([log in to unmask])
I think, in broadest terms, this means (a la Oliver Stone quotes in the
article about QT in this months "Premier"):
Movie maker - one who makes movies generally for entertainment, escape,
thirlls, chills, basing their work on the films of the past, quoting,
mimicing and tributing what they love about the cinema - "the pictures"
These I'd include are Steven Spielberg (except "Schindler's List"),
George Lucas, James Cameron, James Brooks, Rob Reiner, Howard Hawks,
Hitchcock, Ford, QT, etc. I think many of the films made before 1963 would
count - when movies were primarily stories with morals. Where the story is
more important than the message. Movies about movies.
Film makers - one who makes films to teach, to show a wrong, to state
a political or spiritual position, comments on society, etc. Experimental films,
"artistic pieces". I'd include Powell, Stone, Welles, Fellini, etc. Where the
message is more important than the story, where the film is very self aware
of it's intentions. Movies about life.
This is so absolutely vague, so please do not flip out. I think there
is a seed of truth to it, but one certainly can't catagorize every movie
in these slots, and more often than not, there is some amount of cross-over.