SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

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
Subject:
From:
"AMB,FIENNES" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:03:00 PDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
-------------------------Text-of-forwarded-mail--------------------------------
 
Date:    Fri, 21 Jul 95 11:55 PDT
To:      SCREEN-L2UA1VM.UA.EDU
From:    "AMB,"FIENNES""                      <EKAOAMB>
Subject: Lang's comments
 
doesn't it bother anybody out there in the net that forrest gump was nothing
more than a fictional character superimposed in actual events via  computer
technology, a film totally devoid of narrative, functioning only as spectacle?
i do agree each person has as alec baldwin  so rightly observed a different
mindset/patholgy when they view a film. i often wonder WHY  we attend film.
is it spectacle? is it narrative? is it because of a 'scandal' is associated
with a particular film and we were curious about the performer's ability  to
create a performance(which is what he is paid to do as montgomery clift said.)
do we go because we prefer the small film vs the megabudget movie? do we go
because we love tom hanks, denzel washington, and can't stand clueless?
and what about those of us that attend simply because we want to be entertained
for myself, i go for a myriad of reasons as i think most people do
after all isn't the medium what we,as paying members of the moviegoing public ,
make it?
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2