SCREEN-L Archives

September 2001, Week 3


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
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:15:46 -0400
text/plain (32 lines)
>> Far from being repellant films like
>>Bonnie & Clyde, The Godfather, MASH,
>>Catch-22 and The Dirty Dozen were big

        lang is clearly right, and my wishful attempt to find
        some bit of silver lining in all these clouds seems
        futile . . . still, could one reasonably claim that
        the violence in those films [i'm thinking especially
        of the violence in CATCH-22--both movie and book]
        DID feel awful and repellant, even if the films them-
        selves were successful? . . . to put it differently,
        could one argue that the violence in those films
        aimed at  playing a role in a rhetoric of  anti-
        violence, unlike the violence of schwarzenneger,
        stallone, bronson, van damme, et. al. which is
        meant to be enjoyed, celebrated and applauded?

        i'm not sure about this, and i guess that DIRTY
        DOZEN shoots that theory in the foot [or in the
        head] cause as i remeber it all these years later
        it hardly harbored a pacifist sensibility [as CATCH-
        22 in fact did]

        what do people think??


For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: