SCREEN-L Archives

August 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Marti Mangan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 8 Aug 1994 16:02:56 -0700
text/plain (20 lines)
On Thu, 4 Aug 1994, Edward R. O'Neill wrote:
>   Several posts have also pointed out specific economic differences
> between, say, the studio era and the contemporary scene.  Donna
> Cunningham's point about the rapport between theme parks and films is
> particularly apt, since the blockbusters in question resemble rides
> more and more, rather than literary texts.
>   My earlier question about the pleasure in watching such massive
> expenditures still stands.  Is there not something in the massive
> display of capital which is somehow fetishistically pleasurable?
> EVEN when what is presented is destruction...
> Edward R. O'Neill, UCLA
*Especially* the destruction.  Aren't all so-called teen movies about
destroying the parents' house, car, etc., which to a teenager is often a
"massive display of capital?"  Perhaps it's
not so much fetishism as it is symbolism, but seems to give pleasure;
that's often the most popular part of the movie (e.g., Ferris Buehler's
Day Off).