SCREEN-L Archives

March 1991

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:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 29 Mar 91 20:59:45 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
I've only been on this list a short while (like many of you, it seems),
and I'm finding it more interesting by the day.  My initial reactions
were (frankly) fairly negative; given the amount of e-mail I have to
deal with, and the number of hours in the day, I was thinking of
signing off.  But I have decided to stay on, since I am enjoying many
of the recent interchanges, which (interestingly) seem to be
aggravating many, such as Fiona's delightful caricature of experimental
research (for which no smileys were needed!) and the discussions of
Marxism vs. Iron Curtainism.  Good stuff, folks!
 
In any case...  I agree with Curt Sampson's comments on TV vs. film,
AND with Ben Alpers' additions, and would only add the following:
The distinction between TV and film is increasingly difficult to
maintain.  Not only do the same (very few) production companies
account for the vast bulk of what gets distributed for both, but
currently more than half of 'film' revenues and profits come from
home video. (And, of course, home screens are getting bigger while
theatre screens shrink, but that's another matter.)  Of course there
are many critical differences between film and TV 'product' (the
industry's term), and in the way the two media are generally
'experienced', but we shouldn't overlook the extraordinary convergence
and blurring of the distinctions going on between the two of them,
on both the corporate and cultural levels.
 
Cheers,
Michael Morgan
UMass/Amherst                      [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2