SCREEN-L Archives

August 2000, Week 1


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
Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:07:18 -0400
text/plain (38 lines)
Daniel argued:

> Political discussion about the cinema strikes me as *far*
> more important than debating the relative merits of Todd-AO
> or Super VistaVision or arguing about which aspect ratio
> "Miller's Crossing" is meant to be shown in.

and a bit later:

> I would respectfully assert that political discourse is *much* more legitimate
> on this list-serve than claims about which director is, or is not, overrated.

Setting aside for a moment whether or not I feel discussions of processes
and aspect ratios are important, I would agree with your point about the
importance of political discussion with the following caveat: partisan
bickering is not included. No one is doubting the role of politics in film,
nor are they arguing that political discussions should be banned in their
entirety. I believe the call was merely for the discussion to remain
centered on cinema and not devolve into political nay-saying, a perfectly
valid request in my opinion.

Discourse about politics in cinema? Certainly. Political discourse? I
think that's another matter entirely.

In closing, Daniel lamented (I believe you lamented...):

> Eleni suggests Bergman's overrated (although I'm finding hardly anyone who'll
> actually defend his work anymore).

I'm surprised, as most that I know would gladly go to the mat for Bergman,
though I'm the only one donning the leotard for John Carpenter... ;-)


For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives: